Talk:Diaschismic

Merge with Srutal and diaschismic

Leaving this as a note here that I'll try to merge the two pages. ("Srutal and diaschismic" covers 2.3.5.7.17 diaschismic and full 17-limit srutal; "srutal" is a way more complex extension so I don't really mind if its interval table disappears; the one on this page is serviceable for full 17-limit diaschismic though I'd ideally want to separate the 2.3.5.17 core from the further extensions, and this page should really prioritize the basic 2.3.5.17 temperament.) -- Lériendil (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

And nomenclature is particularly thorny for this temperament because it de-facto has two canonical extensions, srutal (34d&46) and diaschismic (46&58), given that it's referred to by both names in the 5-limit. I'd personally vote for renaming the 5-limit temperament simply to "diaschismic", but it makes the canonicity of the 46&58 extension especially dubious. I think it might be best to transfer over the material from my page concerning septimal diaschismic that I can, while repurposing the rest of that page for general discussion about diaschismic extensions. -- Lériendil (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

5-limit = diaschismic. It's canonical extension (12 & 46) is diaschismic.

Pajara is actually the only other viable extension of diaschismic that I can take seriously. It's not accurate for sure, but it does what it does well.

I have not and will never use the term "srutal". 34d&46 is hopeless, just look at the badness ranking.

2.3.5.17 is interesting for sure but I can't say I'm impressed by it in practice. The subgroups doesn't particularly open up many new possibilities.

Idk if this is useful lol just ranting now.

– Sintel🎏 (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the srutal vs diaschismic page is hopeless and I can't care less about it, which is why I created this page for a fresh start. Moreover I'd like to keep this place to discuss diaschismic as a 17-limit temp, like catakleismic as a no-17 19-limit temp, so of course I object to merging. Instead I'd like to eventually have one page for each 7-limit temp in the diaschismic family, tho this won't happen too soon. As for the no-7 temp, it could remain under srutal vs diaschismic or changed to something like srutal archagall.

Canonicity of septimal diaschismic may be reasoned on the fact that the 5-limit optimum is around 46edo in certain optimization schemes, not significantly sharper.

FloraC (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with septimal diaschismic being canonical, honestly (though it should still be called septimal diaschismic in my book) since "srutal" is way more complex and pajara is just not accurate enough. I'll still port over some material from that page and make the separation more clear between the basic 2.3.5.17 temp and the canonical extension to 7, 11, and 13. (Don't quite know how "canonical" the 11 and 13 really are.) -- Lériendil (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)