back to list

Re: [tuning-math] Digest Number 1602

🔗Jon Wild <wild@music.mcgill.ca>

4/1/2006 9:41:39 AM

Gene:
> But it doesn't measure the error in any unambiguous way. It certainly
> does not measure the error of a major triad.

Ah, I see the problem. I imagined that anyone reading would assume "n-limit error" meant "error in approximating an n-limit interval", not "error in approximating an n-limit sonority".

Carl's suggestion of dyadic works, as would "intervallic error."

I don't find "Pepper ambiguity" ambiguous, just less direct, intuitively, than the amount by which an edo "misses" a ratio, expressed as a fraction of the step-size.

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

4/1/2006 11:05:19 AM

> not "error in approximating an n-limit sonority".

No one would. I can't understand Gene's position on this one.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

4/1/2006 11:10:25 AM

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:
>
> > not "error in approximating an n-limit sonority".
>
> No one would. I can't understand Gene's position on this one.

I would.