Talk:Table of 612edo intervals/WikispacesArchive

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.
Please do not add any new discussion to this archive page.
All new discussion should go on Talk:Table of 612edo intervals.

Typographical change

In the first rows, I marked the specifically new ratios that result from the limit increment. I found that gives this table a "face" - what do you think?

- xenwolf January 31, 2012, 12:25:29 AM UTC-0800

I don't care either way.

- keenanpepper January 31, 2012, 01:23:24 AM UTC-0800

Intervals shown are too complex

For example, why is 77 steps given as 67108864/61509375 in the 11 limit, rather than 12/11?

- keenanpepper January 30, 2012, 01:03:33 AM UTC-0800

My pocket calculated results are that from 77\612,

  • the complex interval differs by 7.342 ct612
  • the simple interval has a distance of 17,51 ct612

(ct612 is the relative cent of 612edo == 1\61200 == pow(2, 1/61200))

...of course, in 612edo, the 12/11 ratio is approximated best by 77\612.

- xenwolf January 30, 2012, 01:48:57 AM UTC-0800

Yeah, I know the 612 table is not very good, but I never got around to fixing the reduction routine and thereby fixing the table.

- genewardsmith January 30, 2012, 09:59:30 AM UTC-0800

489 of the 612 11-limit intervals appear in the third-order 11-limit diamond: that is, in diamond(diamond(diamond([1,3,5,7,9,11]))). I'm computing the fourth-order diamond now. This might serve as a basis for a better table.

- genewardsmith January 30, 2012, 11:11:54 AM UTC-0800

Computing the fourth-order diamond was taking too long. The product of the diamond with the third order diamond gives 609 intervals, which should suffice for starters. The five-limit fourth order diamond was easy to compute, and that gives 608 intervals. So I think I can get this done in this manner.

- genewardsmith January 30, 2012, 12:17:49 PM UTC-0800

Looking much better!

- keenanpepper January 30, 2012, 07:51:38 PM UTC-0800

Looking much better!

- keenanpepper January 30, 2012, 07:51:39 PM UTC-0800

What about adding distances or (some kind of) degree of accuracy?

- xenwolf January 31, 2012, 12:16:20 AM UTC-0800