Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Comma oomph

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:10 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> What makes for a comma with oomph? 169/168 has a square numerator which is not a fourth power. That makes it like 121/120, 144/143 and 196/195, but it seems to have less juice. What's that about?

It looks like a lot of good temperaments support it, and it's the best
comma in the 2.3.7.13 subgroup. Where do you feel it comes up
oomphless?

-Mike

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:10 AM, genewardsmith
> <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> >
> > What makes for a comma with oomph? 169/168 has a square numerator which is not a fourth power. That makes it like 121/120, 144/143 and 196/195, but it seems to have less juice. What's that about?
>
> It looks like a lot of good temperaments support it, and it's the best
> comma in the 2.3.7.13 subgroup. Where do you feel it comes up
> oomphless?

To start with, check out the rank 3 temperaments here
http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/uv.cgi?uvs=169%3A168&page=0&limit=13
here
http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/uv.cgi?uvs=169%3A168&page=1&limit=13
here
http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/uv.cgi?uvs=169%3A168&page=2&limit=13
or here
http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/uv.cgi?uvs=169%3A168&page=3&limit=13

Then consider that 275/273 is not superparticular, but the rank five temperament it produces has a higher logflat badness anyway. 729/728 has a higher one also, but 169/168 is even worse. You can't go totally crazy with that measure, since 123201/123200, the smallest 13-limit superparticular, is rated as really really good but you since you can't tell the difference between it and JI it doesn't seem to matter in human terms. Still 169/168 doesn't seem like a ball of fire in the competitive world of 13-limit superparticular commas.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

What about other subgroups? It does better in other subgroups than just
2.3.5.7.11.13, right?

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 22, 2011, at 1:15 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:10 AM, genewardsmith
> <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> >
> > What makes for a comma with oomph? 169/168 has a square numerator which
is not a fourth power. That makes it like 121/120, 144/143 and 196/195, but
it seems to have less juice. What's that about?
>
> It looks like a lot of good temperaments support it, and it's the best
> comma in the 2.3.7.13 subgroup. Where do you feel it comes up
> oomphless?

Then consider that 275/273 is not superparticular, but the rank five
temperament it produces has a higher logflat badness anyway. 729/728 has a
higher one also, but 169/168 is even worse. You can't go totally crazy with
that measure, since 123201/123200, the smallest 13-limit superparticular,
is rated as really really good but you since you can't tell the difference
between it and JI it doesn't seem to matter in human terms. Still 169/168
doesn't seem like a ball of fire in the competitive world of 13-limit
superparticular commas.