Talk:Map of linear temperaments/WikispacesArchive
ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW
Please do not add any new discussion to this archive page.
All new discussion should go on Talk:Map of linear temperaments.
Criteria for rows to appear in these tables
My personal vision for these tables is that it's completely open-ended what octave fractions you want to put in - if you strongly attached to 105\181 as the perfect meantone generator then go right ahead and put it in - but the one thing I'd ask people NOT to do is add lots and lots of octave fractions automatically or pseudo-automatically. There should be a reason for each and every row that appears in the table (even if the reason is merely "I like it").
Does anyone have a serious problem with this policy? If not, I'll remove many of the rows that seem to have been added only to "flesh out" the table and not because someone actually cares about that particular row.
Also, the repeating decimals thing seems useless because the exact rational numbers are already there. There's no reason to write "171.(428571) repeating" because that information is already there in "1\7". The decimal should simply be 171.43, or perhaps 171.429 for overkill precision. It took me a while even to figure out what the underlines meant. Let's just use standard rounded decimals, okay?
I'm open to counter-arguments on any of these points.
- keenanpepper September 13, 2012, 02:16:00 PM UTC-0700
I second all of the above motions.
- d.schallert September 13, 2012, 03:34:09 PM UTC-0700
Go for it.
- Sarzadoce September 13, 2012, 03:53:23 PM UTC-0700
Lovecraft and Huxley
These now have generators listed on a temperaments list, but with no indication of what they might be tempering. One plausible starting point is with the 2.11.13 subgroup and the comma 1352/1331; in terms of that core concept they would both be generators for the same temperament.
- genewardsmith December 02, 2011, 04:56:40 PM UTC-0800
Here are two possibilities I can think of:
http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=17_4p&limit=2.3.7.11.13 (tempers out 1352/1331 as you suggest)
http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=17_21ef&limit=2.3.7.11.13
- keenanpepper December 02, 2011, 05:26:45 PM UTC-0800
I object!
I object strongly to characterizing the 8\35 generator as "orwell". To be sure, the 35bd val supports orwell, but not in a way which gives a correct impression of what orwell is, sounds like, and can do. Insteaf of putting such an extremely misleading characterization on the page, why not call it by some name it honestly is, if you can find one, rather than by one it clearly isn't? 8\35 could be used for the 22&35 temperament, for instance. The tuning is not good, but it's better than trying to use it for orwell.
- genewardsmith December 02, 2011, 01:09:50 AM UTC-0800
Semaphore vs. Semiphore?
I edited this wiki to change semiphore to semaphore because that is the name I've heard everyone refer to it by. It is also listed as "semaphore" on the temperament finder.
http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=19p_5p&limit=5
Is there something I am missing.
- Sarzadoce September 04, 2011, 05:12:57 PM UTC-0700
Talk to Gene about it. It was entirely his decision:
http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/message/view/Semiphore+and+Godzilla/41457421
- keenanpepper September 04, 2011, 05:44:00 PM UTC-0700
Note that the one you linked to should be called "godzilla" because it tempers out 81/80.
Semiphore is a 2.3.7 subgroup temperament that doesn't have the prime 5 at all.
- keenanpepper September 04, 2011, 05:45:48 PM UTC-0700
Then extend it to the 7 limit!
http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=19p_5p&limit=7
- Sarzadoce September 04, 2011, 06:37:21 PM UTC-0700
Um, not sure what you meant to say by posting that second link. That one should also be called "godzilla" according to Gene, again because it tempers out 81/80.
- keenanpepper September 04, 2011, 08:45:42 PM UTC-0700
There's been a lot of discussion of this question, and Graham was in on that, but I'm not sure how his system works. But people want names for full group rank-two temperaments, subgroup rank-two temperaments, and rank three temperaments, and not a mixed up mess with changes going back and forth.
- genewardsmith September 04, 2011, 09:06:24 PM UTC-0700
Keenan: Imagine that temperament page but without the 5. :P
- Sarzadoce September 04, 2011, 09:09:47 PM UTC-0700
This better?
http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=19p_5p&limit=2.3.7
- Sarzadoce September 04, 2011, 09:11:02 PM UTC-0700
"Semiphore" was what I picked because I couldn't get Keenan to give me an alternative.
- genewardsmith September 04, 2011, 09:13:20 PM UTC-0700
Quick note that we've agreed to swap semiphore and semaphore:
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/104570
- mbattaglia1 May 19, 2012, 01:23:15 AM UTC-0700
Page is orphaned
any ideas where it should be linked-to from?
- xenwolf August 25, 2011, 01:48:37 AM UTC-0700
This was already fixed.
- xenwolf January 23, 2013, 05:21:20 AM UTC-0800
How to edit?
It would be nice to be able to edit this table without messing it up, but I don't know the best way to go about doing that.
- genewardsmith May 15, 2011, 08:20:03 AM UTC-0700
There seems to be no way to ease editing this table. Templates could help, but on wikispaces, you have to pay to get this feature enabled. (But I don't know these template features, because I'm not active on a payed wiki here).
(Maybe a graphic would be easier to manage?)
- xenwolf May 16, 2011, 01:54:43 AM UTC-0700
Here are examples of changes I would want to make:
Rather than trying to use 34 as a one-size-fits-all solution to hanson, keemun and catakleismic, I would recognize keemun and catakleismic are not the same. Keemun could be 5\19, though the suggestion of 9\34 is certainly a possibility. Catakleismic should probably be 19\72, though you could use 14\53. Hanson could be 14\53. Anyway, my suggestion would be 14\53 for hanson, 5\19 for keemun and 19\72 for catakleismic.
I would also want to add more temperaments, such as rodan, hemififths, octacot etc, split up garibaldi like kleismic, and who knows what else.
- genewardsmith May 16, 2011, 08:47:39 AM UTC-0700
Wow, what a great resource this diagram is and can be!
To me, the page seems pretty easy to edit with the wysiwyg editor. If you want to add a row, click on a row above or below where you want your row to be, then click on the little table icon that appears beneath your cursor to the right, then click Row => Add Row => Add Above or Add Below. Adding columns works the same way.
I'd like to see this diagram show not only what the BEST generator is for each temperament, but also which temperaments each generator can handle. So, if 9\34 can function as all three of the temperaments Gene lists (and I don't know enough about the subject to agree or disagree with this), then I'd like to see all three names in the comments section for 9\34. Perhaps a particular temperament is done BEST (by some standard) with one particular generator. I'm interested in knowing which generator is BEST (and what the standard is), as well as which generators, even if not best, can handle that temperament. So I wonder if there's a way we can show both things with this table.
Cells can be merged, but I think that would make a mess. A better solution might be to copy the temperament name over and over, although it might look silly.
I think this is lovely, I am very interested in this topic, and I don't consider myself qualified to edit this table. However, I took the liberty of adding Gene's 14\53 Hanson, 5\19 Keemun and 19\72 Catakleismic, taking his word for it. Y'all please let me know if I did it wrong!
- Andrew_Heathwaite May 17, 2011, 12:18:10 PM UTC-0700
Also, am I wrong, or should "Porcupine" go with 3\22 and not 5\37?
- Andrew_Heathwaite May 17, 2011, 02:35:32 PM UTC-0700
Yeah, it is much easier to use the WYSIWYG editor, if only for the "add row" and "add column" tools. If you only had the wikitext editor you would want to use a script or something.
I'll make the changes you describe, Gene.
- keenanpepper August 25, 2011, 01:18:07 AM UTC-0700
Andrew, I'm sure you realize there's no single way to define "best". But if you want to put entries in the table for "TOP" or "p-limit minimax" or whatever other definitions of "best" you have in mind, that would be great.
Just don't make the mistake of thinking one person's "best" is everybody's "best".
- keenanpepper August 25, 2011, 01:21:16 AM UTC-0700
Gene, please do try to edit this if you want to. I will repair the table formatting with no complaints if you break it, but I think you can figure it out. I'm interested how you would make certain fine distinctions.
- keenanpepper August 25, 2011, 02:33:19 AM UTC-0700