User talk:Aura

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Getting Started

Okay, so I'm new here, and I'm new to editing wikis in general, so I need to learn some of the ropes around here. Also, I do have some ideas for interval names and notations, building off of both the SHEFKHED interval naming system and ups and downs notation, and I would like to discuss this. I mean, seeing as I've taken a shine to 159edo, I need a better way of notating this kind of stuff in my music- something that still manages to be diatonic-based... --Aura (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Howdy here! If you want help with editing the wiki, there's a Conventions page on the left side of the wiki that you can refer to, though as a relatively new editor myself, its pretty easy to get the hang of things if you just look at what other people do while editing. On the topic of notation, I'd be happy to talk about it (and perhaps about 159EDO as well!). --CritDeathX (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that someone has noticed what I'm doing! For the record, I do have distinct names for intervals like 11/8 and 16/11. I call the 11/8 interval the "paramajor fourth" and the 16/11 interval the "paraminor fifth" in part as a reference to this [1]. Similarly, I call 128/99 the "paraminor fourth" and 99/64 the "paramajor fifth". For the record, I do use "parasuper" and "parasub" as prefixes not only for the alteration of perfect primes and perfect octaves by 33/32, but also for the augmentation of major intervals and the dimunition of minor intervals by 33/32. Because the dimunition of a major interval by 33/32 does not result in the same interval as does the augmentation of a minor interval by 33/32, especially in those equal divisions of the octave where 243/242 is not tempered out, I use the term "greater neutral" to refer to dimunition of a major interval by 33/32, and the term "lesser neutral" to refer to the augmentation of a minor interval by 33/32. Do note that I use the Pythagorian chain of fifths as a base. --Aura (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I like the sound of this so far. I assume you use super/sub and major/minor for 7- & 5-limit intervals respectively, yes? --CritDeathX (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I do. However, this raises the question of what to do for intervals like 256/225, which naturally occurs between the seventh and second scale degrees in the just versions of the Greater Neapolitan and Lesser Neapolitan scales- otherwise known as the Neapolitan Major and Neapolitan Minor scales respectively. --Aura (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay... I have an idea... So, I'm looking at this page [[2]], as well as this page [[3]], and I notice that there's more than one "minor third" and more than one "major third". The same is true of intervals such as supermajor thirds and subminor thirds- particularly for equal divisions of the octave where the septimal kleisma is not tempered out, such as in 159edo. With that in mind, I'm thinking we should disambiguate between different intervals in the same general range. We can build directly off of the SHEFKHED interval naming system for the basics, though with the difference that any Pythagorean interval other than the Perfect Prime, the Perfect Octave, the Perfect Fifth and the Perfect Fourth with an odd limit of 243 or less should gain the explicit label of "Diatonic"- this lends itself to names such as "Diatonic Major Sixth" for 27/16. Following along this same line of thinking for 5-limit intervals, we can similarly build off of the SHEFKHED interval naming system and explicitly label both 5/4 and 8/5, as well as intervals connected to them by a chain of Perfect Fifths "Diatonic"- assuming the odd limit for said interval is 45 or less. Among the end results of this are that 5/3 is labeled the "Classic Diatonic Major Sixth". I'm currently thinking that certain other 5-limit intervals should also gain the label "Classic" such as 25/16 or even 25/24... --Aura (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello and thx for contributing your ideas! This topic is of my interest and I actually opened a conversation on our FB group on how we may call most 5-limit intervals. To summarize, some would use "pental" for 5-limit intervals, some others would default to simplest ratios in the group and add definitives when needed, but the solution most convincing to me is to call any Pythagorean intervals "Pythagorean" and any 5-limit intervals "classic" (sometimes "grave/acute" for high-odd-limit intervals), though to distinguish 25/24 from 135/128 this needs further disambiguation. I'd also refrain from a meantone-centrist view, where "aug" and "dim" are sometimes abused e.g. "aug sixth" for 7/4, which is only true in meantone. FloraC (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I'm doing this with 159edo in mind, and this is not a meantone temperament as the syntonic comma is not tempered out. I'm not keen on using too many numeric descriptors like "pental" or "septimal" or even "undecimal" for this particular idea, as at the end of the day, my goal is to build off of the SHEFKHED interval naming system for EDOs up to 160edo. I should also point out that not all Pythagorean intervals are Diatonic intervals- only those with an odd limit of 243 or less, therefore, I'm thinking that "Diatonic" is the label that ought to be privileged over "Pythagorean". On a semi-related note, my preferred major scale consists of the intervals 1/1, 9/8, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2, 27/16, 15/8, and 2/1, and I do in fact build directly off of this scale for my diatonic chords- yes, the grave fifth occurs between the sixth and the third, and for me, this serves to amplify the diatonic functions of the VIm chord, as this kind of tuning says "we're not done yet", especially in deceptive cadences. --Aura (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
While I'm on this whole topic of Diatonic intervals, I should mention that I prefer the notes of all my scales to connect directly to the tonic by means of the intervals between the tonic and the other notes in the scale having a power of two in the numerator and or the denominator- that said, I still recognize that 6/5 doesn't meet this criteria when this interval occurs between the I and the IIIm scale degrees, and thus, my preferred minor scale consists of the intervals 1/1, 9/8, 77/64, 4/3, 3/2, 8/5, 16/9, and 2/1. It is for this reason- along with the fact that the 7-limit finds frequent use among barbershop quartets and the like as accidentals in otherwise diatonic keys- that I would classify 11/8, 16/11, 7/4, and 8/7 as "Paradiatonic" intervals. --Aura (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Now, back to this discussion of notation and interval naming... Some will undoubtedly ask where this process of coming up with labels for scale steps of differing edos should stop, and I have an answer for that as well. There is a step-size limit at play in which the step size should be greater than 7 cents. This is because at a step size of 7 cents, the distance halfway between steps is 3.5 cents, which, from what I'm gathering, is below the average just noticeable difference between pitches. At step sizes of 7 cents and smaller, the steps will begin to bleed into one another and become indistinguishable from one another to even the best trained ears. Thus, any edo with a step size of 7 cents or less is ineligible for this kind of extensive process of labeling different step sizes. --Aura (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I can anticipate that some may object that I should draw the line for defining edo steps at something more substantial like 13.5 cents, but I while concur that an edo step size between 7.5 and 13.5 cents is not viable in the traditional musical sense as a step between consecutive notes, I do notice that it does have a usage as a comma pump, and therefore, it has musical value as an edo step size for purposes of modulation, especially for modulating Jacob-Collier-style between keys. --Aura (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
One of the problems I have with notation that doesn't take these kinds of kleismatic differences into account is that without such distinctions, it's hard to determine which notes should have which tunings in order to accomplish a seamless modulation between keys on different circles of fifths, and I've honestly found that to be a significant problem with transcriptions of Jacob Collier's rendition of In the Bleak Midwinter in particular. --Aura (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Wow that was a long read! I'd just like to remind, with 159edo you can think of pitch categories and you don't have to pick fixed pitches for each category, unlike 12edo where you don't have much choice. For example, the 3rd note can vary from 5/4 to 9/7 in different occasions. AFAIK Jacob does his stuff mostly in terms of JI, so I'd think this way too in this case. As for where to draw the edo stopping line, my answer would be 6 cents for human audience (cuz there's an edo around that size that's become my latest favorite :)). FloraC (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about that! I had a lot to say, and I still have a lot to say. For the record, I define a pitch class as consisting of a given pitch plus all multiples and divisions of that pitch by powers of two, so in 159edo, that's 159 different pitch classes available to work with. Also, I'd greatly prefer to keep the number of pitch classes limited for sections of my songs that remain in a particular key so that I don't have to do as much work in tuning them, not to mention that I've grown to like the idea of chords with different diatonic functions having different tunings- something that inevitably results from limiting your pitch class selection, for better or for worse. It is true that I'll change things up for purposes of modulation and when otherwise using accidentals, but nevertheless, while working in any one particular key, I'll generally keep using the same set of fixed pitches. --Aura (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to throw this out there, I classify prime-limits based on their function relative to the tonic in tonal music. The 2-limit is the "Pitch Class Prime"- tying into my aforementioned definition of "Pitch Class". The 3-limit and 5-limit are classified as the "Diatonic Primes" because of their key functions in diatonic and just chromatic music. The 7-limit, 11-limit and 13-limit are classified as "Paradiatonic Primes" due to their relative ease (and, in the case of the 7-limit, frequency) of use as accidentals in otherwise diatonic keys, and, due to the fact that these relatively low primes can create intervals that can be readily used as substitutions for diatonic intervals- again tying into comments I made before about the interval 77/64 in particular. The 17-limit and 19-limit are classified as "Quasidiatonic Primes" owing to the most basic intervals in these families having striking similarities to diatonic intervals, but with greater complexity. Finally, the 23-limit, 29-limit, and 31-limit are classified as "Quasiparadiatonic Primes", a mouthful of a name that I've given them on account of these primes either having striking similarities to paradiatonic intervals, or being able to create intervals that can find use as substitutions for paradiatonic intervals, albeit with greater complexity. I also have a distinct classification for primes between 37 and 1021, and another for primes beyond 1021, but the names of these classes ties into a whole different topic. --Aura (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so in accordance with Sam's suggestion, I'm renaming the 23-limit, 29-limit, and 31-limit the "Pseudodiatonic Primes", since these primes are not diatonic by any stretch, yet they can still serve as substitutes for the paradiatonic primes in a pinch. Any further thoughts? --Aura (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

links again

You should try [[File:Anticipation.mp3]] in the wiki text which appears as:

BTW: interesting piece!

Best regards --Xenwolf (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you like what I've done on the piece... --Aura (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Quartismic Temperament

Howdy there, Aura! I decided to try and leave this for you to check out while you have the idea of a quartismic temperament in mind.

11-limit Mapping:

        1  1 2  2  2
        0 13 7 18 33
          -9?

MOS Scale: https://sevish.com/scaleworkshop/?name=Rank%202%20scale%20(53.37418112074753%2C%202%2F1)%2C%2013%7C9&data=53.374181%0A106.748362%0A160.122543%0A213.496724%0A266.870906%0A320.245087%0A373.619268%0A426.993449%0A480.367630%0A533.741811%0A587.115992%0A640.490173%0A693.864355%0A719.632370%0A773.006551%0A826.380732%0A879.754913%0A933.129094%0A986.503276%0A1039.877457%0A1093.251638%0A1146.625819%0A1200.000000&freq=440&midi=69&vert=5&horiz=1&colors=&waveform=triangle&ampenv=organ

The temperament finder gives me different (very complex) mappings, so I'm not going to worry about that. Also something interesting to note is that there's two types of fifths, as shown in the scale above. Anyways, have fun! --CritDeathX (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed that you had a page for quartismic temperaments. Hopefully this temperament's interesting enough to list on there! --CritDeathX (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I found another temperament! 2.3.5.9.19 Mapping:

        1  0  1  2 2
        0 -16 15 2 14

MOS Scale: https://sevish.com/scaleworkshop/?name=Rank%202%20scale%20(106.71461627796054%2C%201200.0)%2C%205%7C5&data=106.714616%0A213.429233%0A320.143849%0A426.858465%0A533.573081%0A666.426919%0A773.141535%0A879.856151%0A986.570767%0A1093.285384%0A1200.000000&freq=440&midi=69&vert=9&horiz=1&colors=&waveform=triangle&ampenv=organ

Scale Tree Diagram: http://www.microtonalsoftware.com/scale-tree.html?left=12&right=11&rr=1200&ioi=106.71461627796054

I should mention there is an 11 in this, but its way high up. Have fun with this too! --CritDeathX (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have to admit that I don't quite know what I'm looking at for any of the links you've sent, or even how to read the mappings that you've posted. It is true that I can play the scales on the keyboard, however, a number of the other facets of what you've shown are flying over my head at the moment- not that I don't want to actually get this data linked to the page on quartismic temperaments, as I'm absolutely sure this data is valuable. --Aura (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The mappings show how many generators & octaves take to get to a certain interval. For example, in the first temperament I found, our 5/4 can be found after going 7 generators up, and then to get to 5/1, we go two octaves up. The scale tree diagram shows related generators based on certain EDOs. In case you're confused more, the generators I've used are in the titles of the scales in Scale Workshop. --CritDeathX (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Preview feature if the wiki

Hi Aura,
I just want to draw your attention to the fact that there is a preview function when editing pages. Using it regularly will save you from having to make some small changes unnecessarily. It's the [Show preview] button right to the [Save changes] button below the edit memo.
Best regards --Xenwolf (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, I seem to be quite prone to missing words or punctuation marks only to see the need for corrections later... --Aura (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I should also point out that if you go through the records of my edits, you'll find I'm prone to second-guessing myself in terms of how I try to express stuff... --Aura (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Never mind. I know exactly what you're talking about. 🙂
I also see (sorry only now) that you are using the visual editor, so the preview is already incorporated in editing. I personally like the wikitext editor which separates editing and preview (like here on talk pages). Lots of minor updates make it harder to keep track even of a work in progress (especially for discussions, where others may be already starting to answer) or take longer time for organizers of this wiki to patrol the recent changes page (for example as to detect vandalism attempts).
Another thought: since this is a wiki it's not necessary to immediately fix every tiny error you make all the time. Improving your edits could as well be a good starting point for your fellow users here in the wiki. 🙂
Best regards --Xenwolf (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Great idea

I'm very interested in learning about your Ideas of Consonance. Maybe this can help me figure out my own ideas about Consonance/Dissonance. --Xenwolf (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

undecimal subminor second, undecimal supermajor seventh

May I invite you to discuss the topic(s) under Talk:33/32#undecimal subminor second? --13:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Feature request to Diatonic Function Map

I think an important improvement to File:New Diatonic Function Map.png would be to add a cents scale somewhere. I just tried to do it myself but it turned out as too hard. I hope it's not a big issue to you... --Xenwolf (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Would be great, but I'm not sure how to do that... I mean, it's already a little less than one cent per pixel as is in terms of its overall size- it wouldn't be feasible to add markers for all 1200 cents... --Aura (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I think 50-cent steps would absolutely suffice, maybe even 100-cent steps. It's for the reason that you don't have to look up intervals or calculate from ratio. And furthermore you can see at a glance that it is a logarithmic diagram. This scale could as well have bigger and smaller ticks and maybe only some numbers like 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200 (if numbers at all). I'm currently not able to decide what would look best... --Xenwolf (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Alright, here's the latest version with the cents markers added...

Diatonic Function Map (Version 3).png

What do you think? --Aura (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it's more useful now. I still have to figure out what all it may tell me...
I'm also surprised how large the 50-cent steps appear. Sadly we have no image map feature active in this wiki. I also plan to add a graph for the interval categories. --Xenwolf (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I reckon you might want to make pages for all of the listed intervals on the chart if they don't exist already, and gather their sizes in cents. Once that's done, you can go through the Gallery of Just Intervals page manually and catalog the interval categories you see as well as calculate where they fall on this chart. Don't forget to also check the SHEFKHED interval names page, as it could also be of help for classifying intervals that are not listed on the chart. --Aura (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this enlightening reading (the SHEFKHED page). Now the meaning of these "confusing" labels P, M, m, A, d gets so obvious! It's really hard to see it if you are not an English native speaker (and even harder to recognize what you don't see); in German for example they would read R, G, k, Ü, v (R: rein, G: groß, k: klein, Ü: übermäßig, v: vermindert). --Xenwolf (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome! Oh, and one other thing, Augmented intervals, Diminished intervals and the like are likely to be the main group of exceptions as to what type of interval is found in which region on my chart... --Aura (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to make things easier, I can tell you that aside from this chart and the resources I've created, everything else here on this Wiki assumes Bass-Up tonality, so you should only focus on where intervals fall relative to the upper half of the chart for now. My predictions for the results of going through the aforementioned process is that in the Superdietic region, you should find lots of primes and seconds interspersed with one another whereas this is less common in the adjacent regions, likewise, the Subdietic region should host a similar interspersing of sevenths and octaves. In the Contravaricant region, you should expect to find seconds and thirds interspersed with one another, with a corresponding interspersing of sixth and sevenths in the Varicant region. In the Varicoserviant region, you should expect to find thirds and fourths interspersed with one another, with a corresponding interspersing of fifths and sixths in the Varicodominant region. Finally in the Antitonic region, there's a mixture of fourths and fifths. Aside from these specific regions, most of the other intervals are pretty straightforward in terms of what to expect- for example, primes in the Supercommatic region, seconds in the Reverse Lead, Reverse Semilead and Supertonic regions, thirds in the Mediant region, fourths in the Serviant and Semiserviant regions, Fifths in the Semidominant and Dominant regions, Sixths in the Contramediant region, Sevenths in the Subtonic, Semilead, and Lead regions, and octaves in the Subcommatic region. While I do expect there to be outliers, they should be relatively few in number. --Aura (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

tri vs. tre

The English one, two, three is uno, due, tre in Italian. Because classic music language is mostly (derived from) Italian, both is right. --Xenwolf (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah... Still, I assume "tridecimal" is the form we ought to use- for consistency's sake. --Aura (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

programming language of choice

What programming language do you usually use (if you use one at all)? I ask because I plan to enrich the cent page with some snippets. --Xenwolf (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Truth be told I don't really know how to program, so I guess the answer is "none of them"... --Aura (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
(Sorry to intrude here but no one asked on my page and this topic is interesting! ;D ) I’d suggest Python 3. This is a well-used language and also I personally would be able to make additions to the code or check it or something. --Arseniiv (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Harmony in Folly of a Drunk

(Continued from User talk:Xenwolf#The Song that Started It All for Me.)

Thanks for the practice piece! So now I can say the harmony is indeed very novel for me, I don’t seem to anticipate its exposition at all. --Arseniiv (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? All I know is that most of the people I've talked to seem to actually like the harmony and the surprise modulation. --Aura (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Harmony is strange (to me right now) but I won’t say it’s bad, I’m not a good judge on this topic even in 12edo. :) And the piece itself sounds well, so the harmony in it is probably okay too, I presume. --Arseniiv (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Harmonize categories of interval pages

Hi Aura, we are interested in your opinion about Categories of interval pages, thanks in advance for taking the time. --Xenwolf (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply to: Introduction

Please see new reply from SA (SAKryukov). Thank you for your suggestions, but it is still inconvenient, as the channel of communication is based on two different pages, "talk" pages of each of the two, and you probably receive system notifications only if someone edits your "talk" page, and also this is somewhat intrusive. I suggest to support the chat only on one page (in this case, mine), but I can write non-permanent note used just to notify you got a reply. (I removed my previous message as redundant, duplicating the text on (my "talk" page).

Hi SAKryukov, welcome to the xenharmonic wiki. As to mark a reply as such, just indent it by : (one more colon than the text you reply to) at the beginning of the line and sign it at the end. This can be done by typing --~~~~ (2 hyphens and 4 tildes), which will be automatically transformed at the time you save into your linked username (+ talk page) and a timestamp. (Also the preview does the transformation but not persistently.) --Xenwolf (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Windows and Chrome Version

For Windows version, use the Hotkey [⊞]+[R] then type in winver and press [OK]. For Chrome, open menu (☰) → Help → About Google Chrome (see Image in How-To Geek article). --Xenwolf (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Internal links

Just a short reminder: there is no need for underscores instead of spaces for internal links. See following examples:

the last three options differ only in the wiki markup

But honestly, which way looks most natural to you?

The revolutionary idea behind wikis was to support internal linking in the best possible way. MediaWiki, the software that keeps Wikipedia running, and our wiki, tries to go one step further and links other sites in a very convenient way. For example, it doesn't matter if you write the first letter of an article in lower or upper case, so Cent and cent mean the same target page.

This link to the article about interval size measures (it's actually interval size measure) shows another feature: the characters you add directly after the closing ]] are integrated in the link title. This is the reason why Wikipedia articles (as well as most articles in our Wiki) are in singular form.

So much for today about the simplicity of internal linking, I hope my digression did not bore you. --Xenwolf (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Centralized description for Space Tour

I saw that you now have to do the same correction twice. To overcome this, please have look at this option: By placing the following line

{{File:Space Tour.mp3/Description}}

into both pages (File:Space Tour.mp3 and User:Aura) instead of the actual description and the EDO time table, you will get the contents of File:Space Tour.mp3/Description included (without the part above the horizontal rule). See User:Xenwolf/SandBox#Include File:Space Tour.mp3/Description for a live demo. --Xenwolf (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hint: Don't include the nowiki tags when copying. Sorry if this is a bit confusing. On my SandBox page, I start with the explanation what to do, only then I do it. --Xenwolf (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Interval test

The file:Interval Test.mp3 seems not very helpful in making the virtual fundamental audible, at least from my perspective. What frequencies are you using? What wave type? --Xenwolf (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm replicating the intervals with Musescore 3's sine wave instrument as close as I can, but unfortunately, I don't have equipment that can replicate the intervals exactly. I don't know the exact frequencies in Hz, but I do know that the scientific names of the pitches I'm using are C7 and A7, with the A7 differing in relationship to the standard C7. --Aura (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I do seem to be hearing harmonics of the virtual fundamental for the 27/16 interval- and these harmonics are consistent with the virtual fundamental being a C3- but I don't seem to be hearing the virtual fundamental itself... --Aura (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
How do you do the tweaking? By adjusting the note cent wise? In the Inspector under Note -> Tuning? By what amount? --Xenwolf (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
For the 27/16 interval, I raised the A by 5.87 cents- this is as exact as Musescore 3 can go. For the 5/3 interval, I lowered the A by 15.64 cents- again, this is as exact as Musescore 3 can go. --Aura (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
One more thing, you have to go under mixer to find the right sound for the Sine Synth- why this is the case I have no idea. --Aura (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay that's exactly what I did right now: C7 (2093.00Hz) vs. A7+5.87c (3531.94Hz) and C7 vs. A7-15.64c (3488.33Hz). The audible "interval" between both compounds seems to be wider than 21.51 cents but is it? Would we expect to hear the difference tone? --Xenwolf (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hmm... if it is wider, then that would mean I accidentally made a typo when tweaking the A for the second interval in the file- lowering the A by 15.65 cents instead. My bad. My main concern however, is whether or not the fundamental of the 27/16 can be heard at all. I mean, I'm hearing what sounds like the virtual fundamental's 10th and 11th harmonics... --Aura (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
No it isn't wider. My version sounds exactly as yours. In my opinion it's the effect that small intervals seem to grow if you concentrate on hearing them, they seem to develop a kind of leading-tone property. --Xenwolf (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'd wager that 81/80 does have a kind of leading-tone property, but it's a really tense kind of tense and harmonically-disconnected leading-tone property as opposed to the more lax and harmonically-connected leading-tone property of an interval like 16/15. --Aura (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Another strange thing I found out is that, according to Wikipedia's article on the subject, apparently not everyone can hear the virtual fundamental. -Aura (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe the effect is to small with only two partials? --Xenwolf (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Once I added E7-13.69c and G7+1.96c, and turned the volume up, I started hearing the C3 fundamental for the chord featuring the 27/16 interval, and an F3 fundamental for the chord featuring the 5/3 interval- they both have a lousy quality though because of the errors in tuning. --Aura (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Now that I've done this, I'll upload the new version. --Aura (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd suggest to use Csound for demos like this. There you have exact control of frequencies amplitudes and such. --Xenwolf (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Xenwolf, I've been playing around with my particular copy of this file, and it seems I can't hear much of any sort of virtual fundamental effect when the common undertone has an odd limit greater than 64. Just thought I'd let you know. --Aura (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Reduce comma tables on EDO pages

Please have a look at Xenharmonic Wiki: Things to do #Comma tables in EDO_pages. Thanks --Xenwolf (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Aura's Diatonic Scales: naming fix

Dawson, I think the mode naming for the Mixolydian scale needs to be fixed: the adjective “Myxic” should be replaced with “Myxolydic”. This way, this adjective will be consistent with your naming schema, in particular, with “Lydic”. — SASunday 2021 February 14, 17:49 UTC

Actually "Myxic" comes from "Myxian", which is actually a contracted form of "Mixolydian", as used in the coinage of mode names like "Lydomyxian" and "Myxaeolian", see Wikipedia's Article on the Jazz Scale. The reason for this use is that "Mixolydian" is too long for use in forming other mode names, so a shortened form was created for this purpose. Given this etymology, we can assume that "Myxic" and "Mixolydic" are perfect synonyms. --Aura (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
“Myxolydic” then, not “Mixolydic” :-). Okay, maybe you have the reason. In all cases, I strongly suggest using only “Myxolydic” in the Microtonal Playground application, where it is much better to see consistent names, as they all come together. I've designed a way to represent all 49 modes in one window; you will see 7 main modes per each scale (Ionian for Ionian scale, Doric for Doric, etc.), and can dynamically switch to any other of 7 modes by Ctrl+Click, with proper changes in titles, key marks. and transposition to the new tonic. It's going to be quite playable. I think we need to discuss all this. — SASunday 2021 February 14, 19:22 UTC
Also, I would strongly suggest you think about your idea of using any shortened form of anything. In part, this is non-computer thinking, where we have to write and type anything manually. In case of even a little hardness, we don't do this anymore, right? We need to think exclusively about readability, not about writing. If some word is too long, you need to understand perfectly: where exactly it may not fit? can it be confused with some other word? If you cannot answer such questions, rethink shortening, maybe it can only make things worse. Well, just an idea to share... — SASunday 2021 February 14, 19:29 UTC
For the record, I do think that “Mixolydic” works as an adjective in describing the modes of Mixolydian, however, my reservations have more to do with when the diatonic mode names are eventually combined with each other in order to name and describe non-diatonic modes, which I do eventually plan on covering at some point. If we use "mixolydic" as the 'only' adjective, we'd get "lydomixolydic", and "mixolydaeolic"- which are rather unwieldy, even in spoken form, not to mention that the instance of "lyd-" in "mixolydaeolic" makes it sound like the mode in question is a cross between Lydian, Mixolydian and Aeolian rather than just a cross between Mixolydian and Aeolian. I guess you can say that the shortened forms are more useful as combining forms on account of issues like this. As long as we consider that caveat, I can indeed change "Myxic" to the more obvious "Mixolydic". Does that make sense? --Aura (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I should also mention one final thing- the reason why the "i" in the original shortened form "Mixic" was changed to "y" to make "Myxic" is so that we don't confuse "Myxic" with something pertaining to mixing or mixtures. Therefore, in order to avoid multiple levels of confusion in combining forms, "Mixolydian" has the shortened form "Myxian" for usage as a base combining form. I hope this makes more sense. --Aura (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting me. Sure, should be “Mixolydic”. I produced “Myxolydic” under the influence of “Myxic”, as I can see it now. :-) — SASunday 2021 February 14, 22:05 UTC
For the record, “so we don't confuse” is not a sufficient reason for modifying a letter while creating neologisms. New words also tend to follow cultural tradition, not just convenience or something, so it's always better not to break this principle. — SASunday 2021 February 14, 22:10 UTC
True, but if the Wikipedia article on the Jazz scale is any indication, there does seem to be a bit of an emerging tradition to use "myx-" and "myxian" as the shortened combining forms of "Mixolydian", as in "Lydomyxian" and "Myxaeolian". So in effect, that's ultimately the fault of whoever created the words "Lydomyxian" and "Myxaeolian" in the first place, and I can tell you that that was someone else's idea. --Aura (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough — this is a known kind of flexibility in English. My note was rather on the general approach to creating neologisms. — SAMonday 2021 February 15, 15:47 UTC
By the way, on your page, I found a striking example of English i-y flexibility: “Dystopia”. A good name for composition, by the way. It's really “dystopia” but compare — “disorientation”, with extremely close functions of dys-/dis-... — SAMonday 2021 February 15, 18:47 UTC

Comma name inconsistency

So you named 1701/1700 the "palingenesis comma" and "palingenesia" with adjective "palingenic". Earlier you named 19712/19683 the "symbiosma" and "symbiotic comma" with adjective "symbiotic". That's an instance of inconsistency, considering both are English words derived from Greek and with the ending -sis.

My suggestion:

  1. comma name: palingenesis/symbiosis or palingenetic/symbiotic comma.
  2. temperament/chord name: palingenetic/symbiotic temperament/chords.

What do you think? FloraC (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Part of the problem was that I was looking at the wrong adjective for "palingenesis". As to the comma names, I think that both of your suggested options are viable and should both be valid. I'll fix the names accordingly.
Let's not shy away from analysing the names, since I reckon it not preferable for a comma to have lots of aliases. At least it's good to have a single-word canonical form so as to ease categorization on this wiki. The "-tic comma" and "-tic chords" pair seems most convincing. It's how most other comma names that don't end in -ma are used in this context. The "-sis" (without "comma") is reminiscent of "diesis", so syntactically those are viable as well, but semantically questionable (they're plain English words that already have meanings). The "-sis comma" version makes more semantic sense but less syntactic sense, cuz "diesis" clearly doesn't take "comma". The "-ma" version, I'm not quite convinced of. If you check other such commas, most of them are either (1) Greek words originally ending in -ma e.g. limma, schisma, (2) Germanic or Arabic words e.g. grossma, rastma, and (3) proper nouns e.g. orwellisma. That's my analysis. Anyway I'm moving palingenic chords > palingenetic chords, and symbiosma > symbiotic comma.
There're 21-odd-limit essentially tempered chords of 1701/1700. I'm adding those. I'm not sure if going for 27-odd-limit is a good idea. Tons of articles on chords could potentially be rewritten as a consequence. FloraC (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
You may not by sure if going for 27-odd-limit is a good idea, but I sure think it is, because I do indeed go for 27/16 rather than 5/3 for the Major Sixth in my own compositions when I use Diatonic scales. That said, I do see plenty of articles getting generous additions as opposed to being entirely rewritten- as if the 27-odd-limit is simply taking things to the next level for more advanced chords. --Aura (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
On another note, go ahead and move "symbiosma" to "symbiotic comma". --Aura (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand. FloraC (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably defective media file

I noticed that the .mp3 file in this section is pretty much noise, not what you intended to demonstrate. Please check it up.

By the way, do you know if other media files are supported on this site the same way? These days, the most usable Web standard is Opus, and it provides the best combination of compression, quality, and latency. MP3 is not open source and generally is one of the worst standards ever designed. It was rendered obsolete more than a decade ago. It can be clearly seen in the Web video. (I don't mean some industries such as car audio, notorious with their media retards.) Anyway, I know who I can ask... — SAMonday 2021 February 15, 18:16 UTC

Space Tour, Welcome to Dystopia, and 159edo

Hey Aura, I just listened to your two 159edo compositions, “Space Tour” and “Welcome to Dystopia”, and I thought you would like to hear some feedback. I think both of your compositions are incredible and I can’t imagine how long it must have taken you to detune everything by hand. I also have a few questions. First of all, what is the approximation of 159edo that you use and how is it different from 159edo itself? Second of all, how did you decide which EDOs “Space Tour” would mimic at different parts of the song? Userminusone (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The approximation of 159edo that I use differs from 159edo itself by fractions of a cent. The reason it's only an approximation is because I can only specify tuning to within two decimal places in MuseScore- the main program I use to compose and generate sound- as opposed to being able to straight-up divide the octave into 159 equal parts as would be required to have true 159edo. As for how I decided what EDOs to mimic, well, some were easy- like 12edo, 24edo and 53edo, while most of the others were inspired by the comments of others concerning said EDOs in the Table of EDO impressions. --Aura (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I think it's interesting that you feel the need to specify that you aren't writing in true 159edo just because MuseScore has a limitation to its retuning capabilities that most likely nobody will notice. I also write microtonal music in MuseScore, which means that my compositions are also tuned very slightly differently from true EDOs. Personally, I don't think that the slight discrepancies that come from the retuning limitations of various music making software and hardware have to be accounted for. In fact, I think it would be better for these discrepancies to be ignored if they are only a few hundredths of a cent wide, as is the case for your compositions. Do you have any additional thoughts on this matter? --Userminusone (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It maybe true that these discrepancies won't be noticed by listeners, but the fact that I'm the one doing the tuning and cent-size look ups for various intervals means that I would feel as if I were being somewhat disingenuous to the more strict analysts who use computers for their analysis if I didn't add that disclaimer. I hope this makes some degree of sense. --Aura (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

MuseScore 159edo retuning plugin...

Hey Aura, I’ve been thinking about how a 159edo retuning plugin for MuseScore could be made, so I want to explain the main issue and offer 3 potential solutions. This block of text comes directly from the n-tet retuning plugin README. “A maximum of 3 arrows are allowed on each accidental, as MuseScore currently does not provide accidentals with more than 3 arrows. Due to these limitations, and with the help of quartertone accidentals, the plugin can only handle EDOs with a sharpness rating of up to 8.” The main problem here is that 159edo has a sharpness rating of 15 (one sharp equals 15 steps), meaning that there would have to be support for septuple up and septuple down accidentals in MuseScore for each note in 159edo to be accessible. (Assuming usage of ups and downs notation without lifts and drops). Here are my three solutions. The first solution is to come up with a notation system for 159edo using accidentals that can be found in MuseScore’s advanced palate. Then, a fork of euwbah’s n-tet retuning plugin would have to be made which could map all of the accidentals to edostep offsets. (Sharp equals 15 steps, triple up natural equals 3 steps, etc) The second solution is to use ups and downs notation from 53edo combined with “+” and “-“ symbols to indicate 1 step offsets for 159edo. For this to be effective, the plugins which raise and lower a note by one edostep (these plugins are included with the n-tet retuning plugin) would have to be modified to add and remove the “+” and “-“ symbols as necessary as well as changing the accidental and the pitch offset. The third solution is to use polychromatic notation for 53edo and to use the up and down arrow accidentals to access the notes in 159edo. Again, the pitch up and pitch down plugins would have to be modified. This time, these plugins would have to change the note head color as well as changing the accidental and the pitch offset. I would like to know which option you think is best for making 159edo compositions in MuseScore. In addition, since the programming language for MuseScore (Qt) is a bit too confusing for me to make anything meaningful in, you’ll have to ask FloraC to do the actual coding. I might be able to help a little bit, but not much. --Userminusone (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible that there's a fourth solution? I mean, I already have a planned set of accidentals that seems to work, but they seem to need refining in terms of their design. In addition to the traditional natural, sharp, flat, double sharp and double-flat accidentals there are two new sets of quartertone accidentals, and an interesting set of tree-like arrows.
Quarter-accidentals-narrow-rastmic-wide.png
  1. top line: narrow
  2. middle line: rastmic (standard)
  3. bottom line: wide
The above image shows the new quartertone accidentals, while the image below shows the remainder of the new accidentals.
Possible 159edo Accidentals.png
top row from left to right:
  1. rastma wide
  2. biyatisma wide
  3. syntonic wide
  4. syntonic + rastma wide
  5. syntonic + byatisma wide
  6. double syntonic wide
bottom row from left to right:
  1. rastma narrow
  2. biyatisma narrow
  3. syntonic narrow
  4. syntonic + rastma narrow
  5. syntonic + byatisma narrow
  6. double syntonic narrow
I hope the above accidentals make sense. I mean, I'm trying to make my approach to this whole thing as clean and straighforward as possible. --Aura (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems like you’re thinking of using custom accidentals with MuseScore. As far as I know, MuseScore has absolutely no support for importing custom accidentals, but I could be wrong. Even if MuseScore could support custom accidentals, I don’t think the custom accidentals could be utilized in a plugin because the plugin would have to be able to recognize these new accidentals with internal accidental codes. Since I know almost nothing about Qt, the programming language used to make plugins in MuseScore, you’ll have to double check with FloraC if your fourth solution is possible/feasible. --Userminusone (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
At a certain point, I'm afraid custom accidentals are a must. That said, I am willing to wait and perfect this system first. --Aura (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
For now, while custom accidentals cannot be supported in MuseScore, wouldn't you rather have the detuning done automatically by a modified version of the n-tet retuning plugin rather than you having to input all the cent offsets yourself?
Musescoremicrotonalaccidentals.png
This image shows all of the microtonal accidentals currently in MuseScore. I'm sure at least some of them can temporarily suit your needs. --Userminusone (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm willing to wait for MuseScore 4 for this considering that that version is currently in the works, in part because some of the accidentals that could otherwise be the most useful have been found to present legibility issues. However, I don't think it will hurt to at least get the ball rolling on this one. With that, do you have the time and or resources to help me finalize the designs of these custom accidentals of mine? Once that's done, we can talk to Euwbah and others about how to implement these in MuseScore 4. --Aura (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, I do have some time this weekend, but I wouldn’t say I have the resources to assist with making custom accidentals. I’m not an artist and I don’t have any kind of glyph editing programs or other art making programs. I can give feedback on your custom accidentals every now and then but I can’t help directly with the accidental making process. My main reason for asking you about this plugin is to give you a way of composing in 159edo without having to worry about retuning the notes manually. That’s why I think it would be better for you to have a temporary solution that doesn’t require any custom accidentals whatsoever. --Userminusone (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

New Comma

Hey Aura, can you give me your thoughts on the somewhat esoteric comma that I called the "Goldis" comma? I particularly would like to know if you have a better name for it and if you can think of higher limit extensions to the temperament. (The link to the page is on my user page) --Userminusone (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

A potentially useful thing I came up with...

Hey Aura, I have another thing that I would like you to check out and give me your thoughts on. It might be more up your alley as it is based on Just Intonation. It's called the Averiant. --Userminusone (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I checked it out and I'm not sure what to make of it at the moment. --Aura (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
That's understandable. One thing I didn't mention, though, is that the Averiant could be useful for finding new commas. As an example, the comma 128/125 can be derived by taking the (1/3)averiant between 2/1 and 1/1 to get 5/4, and then equating 5/4 with 1/3 of an octave (or equivalently, equating 125/64 with an octave). 128/125 is quite a large comma but my point is that this approach could theoretically be used to find much smaller commas. --Userminusone (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I believe that, but how do you specifically narrow your commas down to those with low prime limit? --Aura (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, but to answer your question, one thing you could do is start with three simple ratios and find the averiantal percentage of the middle ratio relative to the two outer ratios, which you can then use to derive the comma. As an example, I could calculate the (1/1 - 5/4)averiantal percentage of 8/7, which is 3/5. To derive a comma from this, I would equate (8/7)^5 with (5/4)^3, resulting in the rainy comma. --Userminusone (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)