This is an Opt In Archive . We would like to hear from you if you want your posts included. For the contact address see About this archive. All posts are copyright (c).
- Contents - Hide Contents - Home - Section 54000 4050 4100 4150 4200 4250 4300 4350 4400 4450 4500 4550 4600 4650 4700 4750 4800 4850 4900 4950
4200 - 4225 -
Message: 4225 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 01:00:54 Subject: Re: 32 best 5-limit linear temperaments redux From: dkeenanuqnetau --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:> ok. gene, once again, this means that in the 'gens' calculation, the > number of generators in the 3:1 should be multiplied by log(3), the > number of generators in the 5:3 should be multiplied by log(5), the > number of generators in the 5:1 should be multiplied by log(5).And to make the result meaningful (i.e. comparable to the unweighted values) then after you take the RMS of these weighted values you should divide by sqrt(log(3)^2+log(5)^2+log(5^2)).
Message: 4226 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:59:07 Subject: Re: amt From: dkeenanuqnetau --- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote: >>> How was the name amt arrived at. Is it an abbreviation for something? >> It's an acronym for "acute minor third", from its generator.Lets call it that then, since AMT isn't pronouncable and why save one syllable just to make it more obscure.>> It could be called "fifth of eleventh". >> Sounds like a borg.Tee hee. Yeah. One with a lisp. A cute minor.
Message: 4227 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 01:27:29 Subject: Re: 32 best 5-limit linear temperaments redux From: dkeenanuqnetau --- In tuning-math@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:> Dave's getting 7.3 too, with this: > > SQRT((E13^2+F13^2+(E13-F13)^2)/3)*1200/L13 > > Anybody care to explain why this isn't total rubbish? Putting > both the individual gens per idenitity (E13 and F13) and the > total width of the chain (E13-F13) together into the rms calc???That's unweighted rms complexity which is SQRT((gens(1:3)^2+gens(1:5)^2+gens(3:5)^2)/3)*1200/period where period is in cents and gens(3:5) = gens(1:5)-gens(1:3), where the gens are signed quantities, not absolute values. So it's not necessarily the total width. Max-absolute complexity (your total width) is MAX(ABS(gens(1:3),ABS(gens(1:5),ABS(gens(3:5))*1200/period which is equivalent to ABS(MAX(gens(1:3),gens(1:5))-MIN(gens(1:3),gens(1:5)))*1200/period By expanding gen(3:5)^2, rms complexity could be calculated as SQRT((gens(1:3)^2+gens(1:5)^2-gens(1:3)*gens(1:5))*2/3)*1200/period but who cares.
Message: 4228 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:12:13 Subject: Re: Dave's 23 best 5-limit temperaments From: dkeenanuqnetau --- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:>> --- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote: >>>> 1990656/1953125 Extends to the 1029/1024^126/125 = >>> [9,5,-3,-21,30,-13] system, and needs a name.) >>> >>> map [[0, 9, 5], [1, 1, 2]] >>> >>> generators 77.96498962 1200 >>> >>> keenan 12.03289099 rms 2.983295872 g 6.377042156 >>>> How about "quarter major thirds"? >> Not accurate; I think "chromic" would be a good name, since thegenerator is 21/20~25/24, the chromatic semitone or chroma.>>>> 16875/16384 (Extends to the 225/224^49/48 = [4,-3,2,13,-8,-14]>> system, and needs a name.) >>>>>> map [[0, -4, 3], [1, 2, 2]] >>> >>> generators 126.2382718 1200 >>> >>> keenan 12.16857021 rms 5.942562596 g 4.966554810 >>>> I've called it "quarter fourths" in the past, but it could also be >> "third of major thirds". >> I think quadrafourths would be fine.I'm happy with both of those. The only worry: there are lots of things called chromas in Manuel's intnam.par. Would "chromatic" be better, or would that tend to suggest something else?
Message: 4229 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 02:37:24 Subject: Re: Dave's 18 best 5-limit temperaments From: genewardsmith --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:> If your algorithm fails to find certain kinds of temperament that > other algorithms do find, you shouldn't try to deny their existence, > you should fix your algorithm.I would fix it, except I see not finding these things to be a positive virtue. I don't want them; I think they are merely confusing the issue.
Message: 4230 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:14:25 Subject: Re: Dave's 23 best 5-limit temperaments From: paulerlich so 7625597484987:7629394531250 would be the first major one we're cutting off? it's of course important as the 5-limit aspect of ennealimmal. you might argue that ennealimmal is a higher-limit consideration. but will the current criteria dave is using preclude its inclusion when we get to higher limits? i certainly hope not. we don't want to go through this same subjective process over again for every 'limit'.
Message: 4231 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 04:30:25 Subject: Re: Dave's 18 best 5-limit temperaments From: dkeenanuqnetau --- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote: >>> If your algorithm fails to find certain kinds of temperament that >> other algorithms do find, you shouldn't try to deny their existence, >> you should fix your algorithm. >> I would fix it, except I see not finding these things to be apositive virtue. I don't want them; There's plenty of stuff in there that I don't want, but I'm willing to accept that someone else might want them.> I think they are merely confusing the issue.What issue is that? How are they confusing it? You could eliminate them (you have schismic and neutral-thirds-related ones as well, with your badness measure) by setting your badness cutoff between 386 and 439, but that would also eliminate pelogic, minimal diesic, 16875/16384, and 1990656/1953125. Paul would be upset to lose pelogic and I think minimal diesic is of as much interest as many others that would still be in there. You could eliminate the schismic-related ones by setting your complexity cutoff between 13.2 and 13.9 gens. Actually you could set it as low as 11.1 and hemithird would fall off the list too. I wouldn't mind since it's on the bottom of my list. And then you could eliminate the rest by setting your badness cutoff between 650 and 652. That will leave pelogic and minimal diesic but will eliminate 16875/16384, and 1990656/1953125, which is probably no skin of anyone's nose. But it seems awfully contrived, if it's just because you don't like them. And it will get pretty tiresome trying to get rid of them by such means, and make our two lists agree, for every combination of odd-harmonics. And it still doesn't make me happy because, according to my badness, if we eliminate the half and twin meantones we should also eliminate parakleismic, pelog and hemithird. That would be OK by me, but I understand pelogic is non-negotiable for Paul. It seems we don't have a list we all agree on yet. Twin meantone, half meantone-fourth and half meantone-fifth are all in Graham's list too. They come just before pelogic and 16875/16384.
Message: 4232 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:15:19 Subject: Re: amt From: paulerlich --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:>> --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote: >>>>> How was the name amt arrived at. Is it an abbreviation for > something? >>>> It's an acronym for "acute minor third", from its generator. >> Lets call it that then, since AMT isn't pronouncable and why save one > syllable just to make it more obscure. >>>> It could be called "fifth of eleventh". >>>> Sounds like a borg. >> Tee hee. Yeah. One with a lisp. A cute minor.ok, so now we're pedophiles, are we? :)
Message: 4233 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:49:02 Subject: Re: Systematic naming of new temperaments (was: amt) From: Carl Lumma>> >haracters from novels, breads, etc., are also good. >>They are fun when you're in the in-crowd who knows, but they are >totally mystifying to newcomers. I dunno about you, but I get tired of >explaining terms to newbies or telling them where to find the list or >dictionary. I'd rather newbies had at laest some chance of figuring it >out for themselves.The names will be the least of their worries.>>> Tiny diesic becomes hemisixths. >>> Minimal diesic becomes quadrafifths. >>> 4294967296/4271484375 becomes septathirds. >...>> There's not enough variety in this naming scheme for my taste. In >> effect, I'm going to have to think about the name each time I hear >> the temperament, whereas "orwell" lives in my mind as its own >> entity. >>But Carl, that's only because it has a history with you.Yes, but my more general point was that I like off-the-wall associations. Maybe just me, too.>There is at least one temperament name that essentially uses this >system that has been around for a long time. I'm sure you don't have >any problem recognising it. neutral thirds.True, but it's the only one like that.>Sure the terti quarti quinti ones are a little more difficult but they >will usually be the more complex and therefore less popular ones >anyway. When we go to higher limits, the best ones often have a >generator which is a whole consonant interval. Like "subminor thirds >temperament", the name that was used before "Orwell", for that 7-limit >temperament.And we used to say "chain-of-minor-thirds" for kleismic! How do you differentiate two different mappings with the same generator? -Carl
Message: 4234 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 04:51:08 Subject: Re: 32 best 5-limit linear temperaments redux From: paulerlich --- In tuning-math@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:>> carl, if 'identity' is defined as 'consonant interval', then the >> *only* thing going in here is the individual gens per identity. >> that's all. E13-F13 is the major sixth or minor third. >> Oh. Well, I'm not sure how that's significant, since in regular > temperaments it will always be the difference of the 3 and 5 > mappings.right -- so what's your objection?
Message: 4235 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:16:05 Subject: Re: Dave's 23 best 5-limit temperaments From: paulerlich --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:> I'm happy with both of those. The only worry: there are lots of things > called chromas in Manuel's intnam.par.this is even worse than 'diesic'.> Would "chromatic" be better, or > would that tend to suggest something else?chromatic unison vectors.
Message: 4236 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 05:04:19 Subject: Re: Dave's 18 best 5-limit temperaments From: paulerlich --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:> I don't see how you can disqualify them as 5-limit temperaments simply > because all the 5-limit intervals are approximated by an even number > of generators. What kind of a definition of temperament would disallow > that?the natural one, of deforming the ji lattice so that it meets itself and reduces the number of dimensions of infinite extent.> Isn't a (octave-equivanlent) 5-limit temperament simply any scale or > tuning system that approximates ratios of 1,3 and 5 and their octave > equivalents?no. they're cool, though. but these tuning systems _begin_ as ji, and evolve.> > There can be no argument that they are not _linear_. They have a > single generator operating withing a whole-number fraction of an > octave.so what? that's true of diaschismic and augmented and diminished too, isn't it?> I think, Paul, that maybe you're being blinded by your "hypothesis", > since here we have the same comma involved in different temperaments > with different complexities. How about you modify your hypothesis to > take care of that, rather than try to deny that these are > temperaments.they are tuning systems, not temperaments.> And lest you are tempted to now claim as Gene has, that these are > simply meantone, I claim that a temperament is fundamentally defined > by its mapping of generators and periods to primes (with generator and > period in lowest terms), not by the commas that vanish. different > mapping = different temperament. Seems obvious enough to me.you're talking about linear tuning systems, not linear temperaments. tempering is always a tempering of ji. at least if you read barbour, blackwood, mandelbaum, and most of the reputable sources.> If your algorithm fails to find certain kinds of temperament that > other algorithms do find, you shouldn't try to deny their existence, > you should fix your algorithm.ok, they should be in the paper, since no one should be expected to multiply or divide by 4 or 8. but they're not temperaments -- the steel cage of just intonation doesn't turn into one of the contortional cases just by tempering the metal. it may be just as good as a tuning system, but it's a different beast. having a period that is a fraction of an octave is already way off the map for most of the potential audience, btw. i'm glad we seem to agree that *that* should be changed . . .
Message: 4237 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:19:46 Subject: Re: A common notation for JI and ETs From: manuel.op.de.coul@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx [Secor]>> That's something that I don't like about the Sims notation -- down >> arrows used in conjunction with sharps, and up arrows with flats. [Keenan]>I think Manuel exempts sharps and flats from this criticism.Yes indeed, for example, Eb/ is always the nearest tone to 6/5 as E\ is always nearest to 5/4. Manuel
Message: 4238 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:16:21 Subject: Re: Interesting 46-et, 8-tone scale From: Herman Miller On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 01:10:32 -0000, "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@xx.xxx.xx> wrote:>It looks good melodically too (from what little I know about that). >It is very close to being a subset of Herman Miller's 12-tone Starling >tuning, from which Herman has used several 7-note subsets. So >"Starling-8" might be a good name for it.It does seem to have some resemblance (due to the 125:126 and the chromatic semitones), although Starling as I've used it has slightly _narrow_ fifths, while 46-ET has slightly wide fifths. Still, the 125:126 is really the defining feature of Starling temperament, and the size of the fifth is more incidental. It also looks similar to the octatonic scale: A# F# C# A E C G Eb Substitute a Gb for the F#, and you have the octatonic scale in diminished temperament. (Of course, due to the 648/625, these notes represent the same pitch in diminished temperament.) This also suggests a possibly useful 12-note subset of 46-ET, by analogy: A# F# C# D A E F C G Ab Eb Cb>I'm guessing it should work well in 31-tET too as >2 6 2 5 3 5 2 6Or in 34 as 2 7 2 5 4 5 2 7 Probably any temperament in the general area with a 125:126 would work. I wonder if it works in one of the more extreme ones, like 28, 15, or even 16? (Well, in 16 it'd be identical to the octatonic scale, if it works at all....) -- see my music page ---> ---<The Music Page * [with cont.] (Wayb.)>-- hmiller (Herman Miller) "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any @io.com email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body, \ "Subject: teamouse" / there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin
Message: 4239 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:30:20 Subject: Re: A proposed list of 5-limit not-quite-Just-thingies From: dkeenanuqnetau --- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:> What happened to chromic?I don't need it on the list, and by your badness it is _much_ worse than any of those on the list. You'd have to include lots of others if you included chromic. I should never have tried to name it. Sorry.
Message: 4240 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 05:30:45 Subject: Dave's 23 best 5-limit temperaments From: genewardsmith 81/80 meantone map [[0, -1, -4], [1, 2, 4]] generators 503.8351546 1200 keenan 6.263263749 rms 4.217730124 g 2.943920288 15625/15552 kleismic map [[0, 6, 5], [1, 0, 1]] generators 317.0796754 1200 keenan 6.601347654 rms 1.029625097 g 4.546060566 128/125 augmented map [[0, -1, 0], [3, 6, 7]] generators 491.2018553 400 keenan 7.686514108 rms 9.677665980 g 2.449489743 2048/2025 diaschismic map [[0, -1, 2], [2, 4, 3]] generators 494.5534684 600 keenan 7.826993942 rms 2.612822498 g 4.320493799 32805/32768 shismic map [[0, -1, 8], [1, 2, -1]] generators 498.2724869 1200 keenan 8.087460995 rms .1616904714 g 6.976149846 3125/3072 small diesic map [[0, 5, 1], [1, 0, 2]] generators 379.9679494 1200 keenan 8.209877206 rms 4.569472316 g 3.741657387 393216/390625 wuerschmidt map [[0, 8, 1], [1, -1, 2]] generators 387.8196732 1200 keenan 9.019558680 rms 1.071950166 g 6.164414003 78732/78125 tiny diesic map [[0, 7, 9], [1, -1, -1]] generators 442.9792974 1200 keenan 9.925545192 rms 1.157498146 g 6.683312553 250/243 porcupine map [[0, -3, -5], [1, 2, 3]] generators 162.9960265 1200 keenan 10.05091489 rms 7.975800816 g 3.559026083 2109375/2097152 orwell map [[0, 7, -3], [1, 0, 3]] generators 271.5895996 1200 keenan 10.08322927 rms .8004099292 g 7.257180353 25/24 neutral thirds map [[0, 2, 1], [1, 1, 2]] generators 350.9775007 1200 keenan 10.18726181 rms 28.85189698 g 1.414213562 648/625 diminished map [[0, 1, 1], [4, 5, 8]] generators 394.1343571 300 keenan 11.09063733 rms 11.06006024 g 3.265986323 20000/19683 minimal diesic map [[0, 4, 9], [1, 1, 1]] generators 176.2822703 1200 keenan 11.40932735 rms 2.504205191 g 6.377042156 1600000/1594323 amt map [[0, -5, -13], [1, 3, 6]] generators 339.5088258 1200 keenan 11.64300516 rms .3831037874 g 9.273618495 6115295232/6103515625 semisuper map [[0, 7, 3], [2, -3, 2]] generators 528.8539366 600 keenan 11.67903530 rms .1940181460 g 9.933109620 1990656/1953125 Extends to the 1029/1024^126/125 = [9,5,-3,-21,30,-13] system, and needs a name.) map [[0, 9, 5], [1, 1, 2]] generators 77.96498962 1200 keenan 12.03289099 rms 2.983295872 g 6.377042156 16875/16384 (Extends to the 225/224^49/48 = [4,-3,2,13,-8,-14] system, and needs a name.) map [[0, -4, 3], [1, 2, 2]] generators 126.2382718 1200 keenan 12.16857021 rms 5.942562596 g 4.966554810 1224440064/1220703125 parakleismic map [[0, -13, -14], [1, 5, 6]] generators 315.2509133 1200 keenan 13.40122787 rms .2766026501 g 11.04536102 135/128 pelogic map [[0, -1, 3], [1, 2, 1]] generators 522.8623453 1200 keenan 14.05153795 rms 18.07773298 g 2.943920288 274877906944/274658203125 hemithird map [[0, -15, 2], [1, 4, 2]] generators 193.1996149 1200 keenan 14.38723787 rms .6082244804e-1 g 13.14026890 48828125/47775744 map [[0, 11, 6], [1, 1, 2]] generators 63.83293258 1200 keenan 14.40230680 rms 2.796054904 g 7.788880963 1220703125/1207959552 map [[0, -13, -2], [1, 6, 3]] generators 407.5847053 1200 keenan 14.45277274 rms 1.059594779 g 9.899494934 4294967296/4271484375 map [[0, -9, 7], [1, 2, 2]] generators 55.27549315 1200 keenan 14.64533251 rms .4831084292 g 11.34313302
Message: 4241 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:33:47 Subject: Re: Dave's 23 best 5-limit temperaments From: manuel.op.de.coul@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>>> >enerators 126.2382718 1200This is about 2/3 of a whole tone, in Latin "bes toni". So how about bestonic? Manuel
Message: 4242 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:39:41 Subject: Re: Dave's 23 best 5-limit temperaments From: genewardsmith --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote: >>> I'm happy with both of those. The only worry: there are lots of > things>> called chromas in Manuel's intnam.par. >> this is even worse than 'diesic'.When I came up with "chromic", I thought of certain compounds of chromium, such as chromic acid. I suppose we could just call the thing "chrome".
Message: 4243 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 06:16:12 Subject: Re: 32 best 5-limit linear temperaments redux From: paulerlich --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:>> ok. gene, once again, this means that in the 'gens' calculation, the >> number of generators in the 3:1 should be multiplied by log(3), the >> number of generators in the 5:3 should be multiplied by log(5), the >> number of generators in the 5:1 should be multiplied by log(5). >> And to make the result meaningful (i.e. comparable to the unweighted > values) then after you take the RMS of these weighted values you > should divide by sqrt(log(3)^2+log(5)^2+log(5^2)).why do you want them to be comparable to the unweighted values?
Message: 4244 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:40:02 Subject: Re: A proposed list of 5-limit not-quite-Just-thingies From: dkeenanuqnetau --- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote: > What happened to chromic?Oh I think I realise why you ask, since you wouldn't want it by your own badness measure. You think I'm violating my own badness measure. The thing is, I've changed my parameters from 7.4 cents and 0.5 power, to 5.5 cents and 0.43 power to make it agree better with your list. See my latest version spreadsheet http://uq.net.au/~zzdkeena/Music/5LimitTemp.xls.zip - Type Ok * [with cont.] (Wayb.) I've fixed the names.
Message: 4245 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 06:47:56 Subject: amt From: genewardsmith --- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:> 1600000/1594323 amt > > map [[0, -5, -13], [1, 3, 6]] > > generators 339.5088258 1200 > > keenan 11.64300516 rms .3831037874 g 9.273618495This extends to the 7-limit system 5120/5103^4375/4374 = [5,13,-17,-76,41,9], with a 28/99 generator. This could be called "amt" also, unless someone has a better idea for a name--which probably would not be hard.
Message: 4246 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:43:13 Subject: Re: Dave's 23 best 5-limit temperaments From: paulerlich --- In tuning-math@y..., manuel.op.de.coul@e... wrote:>>>> generators 126.2382718 1200 >> This is about 2/3 of a whole tone, in Latin "bes toni". > So how about bestonic?16875/16384, right? "best tonic" -- 16384 is a power of 2 . . . hmm . . . sounds like 'bastoni' (italian bread). fits in well with 'injera' (ethiopian bread). actually this works well, since 225/224^49/48 (bastoni) is in the same 'aisle' as 81/80^50/49 (injera).
Message: 4247 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:39:18 Subject: Re: Weighting complexity (was: 32 best 5-limit linear temperaments) From: paulerlich --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:>>>> ok. gene, once again, this means that in the 'gens' calculation, >> the>>>> number of generators in the 3:1 should be multiplied by log (3), >> the>>>> number of generators in the 5:3 should be multiplied by log (5), >> the>>>> number of generators in the 5:1 should be multiplied by log (5). >> this>>>> will cause temperaments generated by the fifth to look better >> than>>>> they currently do, relative to those that aren't. >> Paul, don't you mean "divided by". log(3) is smaller than log(5) so if > you want to favour fifths ...oh yeah, i meant divided by . . . i said it the right way last time, about two months ago . . . and i don't buy graham's objections one bit. yes, it favors those systems which are *aspects* of lower-limit systems -- but very often you get more than one such aspect per lower-limit system! this is a very positive feature, not a bug -- it sits nicely with a view of higher-limit systems often evolving out of lower-limit ones. and of course it reflects musical reality much better.
Message: 4248 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:43:18 Subject: Re: Degenerate temperaments (was: A proposed list of 5-limit not-quite-Just-things) From: paulerlich --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:>>> twin meantone = garbage >>> half meantone-fourth = ditto >>> half meantone-fifth = ditto >> Paul, you say they are not temperaments because they do not map to a > _the_ JI lattice, and are therefore merely "tuning systems". But of > course they map to two (or more) disconnected JI lattices which is a > hell of a lot better than a mere "tuning system". How about we call > them degenerate temperaments?decent, though torsion, rather than contorsion, would seem closer to the usage of 'degeneracy' that i'm familiar with from physics and math, when applied to temperaments.
Message: 4249 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:49:43 Subject: Re: Degenerate temperaments (was: A proposed list of 5-limit not-quite-Just-things) From: Carl Lumma>> >ell of a lot better than a mere "tuning system". How about we call >> them degenerate temperaments? >>decent, though torsion, rather than contorsion, would seem closer to >the usage of 'degeneracy' that i'm familiar with from physics and >math, when applied to temperaments.Agree. They're not instances of degenerate temperament. They're instances of superposed, perfectly legitimate temperament_s_. -Carl
4000 4050 4100 4150 4200 4250 4300 4350 4400 4450 4500 4550 4600 4650 4700 4750 4800 4850 4900 4950
4200 - 4225 -