Spectacle temperament?

Doesn't the 11-limit planar temperament which Graham unfortunately calls 31&34&72 deserve a name? Somehow it seems to have been overlooked in the naming department. It tempers out both 225/224 and 243/242, making it a sort of marvel infested with neutral thirds. What about "spectacle" as a name? Adding 351/350 (13 limit) and 375/374 (17 limit seem like natural extensions.

I'm denouncing the name 31&34&72 as "unfortunate" since it could also be the name of the {243/242, 385/384} temperament.

On 6 May 2010 02:35, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Doesn't the 11-limit planar temperament which Graham unfortunately calls 31&34&72 deserve a name? Somehow it seems to have been overlooked in the naming department. It tempers out both 225/224 and 243/242, making it a sort of marvel infested with neutral thirds. What about "spectacle" as a name? Adding 351/350 (13 limit) and 375/374 (17 limit seem like natural extensions.

Here it is:

http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=31+34+72&limit=11

You can add as many names as you like if you give me a list in some
machine readable format. Printable ASCII only for now.

I've also got the naming routine to find things that extend a lower
rank temperament with higher primes. Like this:

http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=12+14+31&limit=11

That fills in some more gaps.

> I'm denouncing the name 31&34&72 as "unfortunate" since it could also be the name of the {243/242, 385/384} temperament.

That's here, no name:

http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=7_31_72&error=2.090&limit=11&invariant=1_-1_0_2_0_-3_5_1_1_0_6_2

Graham

Graham wrote:

>I've also got the naming routine to find things that extend a lower
>rank temperament with higher primes. Like this:
>
>http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=12+14+31&limit=11

That's pretty awesome.

It would be cool if "Complexity" and "Adjusted Error" (and
TOP-RMS while you're at it) were links to pages explaining
the current method for each.

Cheers for putting units after Adjusted Error and TOP-RMS
(I can then assume that Complexity is unitless).

-Carl