Temperament Needs a Name

Here is a temperament from Graham's finder that needs your attention. Right now it doesn't have a name in the finder, and I don't believe it is on the xenharmonic wiki. Either way, it could really use a name.

http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=46_41&limit=5

Notice how it has the same 5-limit mapping as Rodan. However, it is also quite unlike Rodan in the sense that we are not mapping prime 7.

So here are the choices it comes down to:

1.) We could name it Rodan, despite the fact that it doesn't include a mapping for 7.
2.) We could name it Tricot, and add it to the family of "cots," e.g. Dicot & Tetracot.
3.) We could give it a totally different name for the heck of it.

Any thought?

Ryan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Avella" <domeofatonement@...> wrote:

> Any thought?

My thought is that you can't very well claim the temperament is interesting unless you claim the |20 -17 3> comma is interesting, so you should first name that if you think it deserves a name.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Avella" <domeofatonement@> wrote:
>
> > Any thought?
>
> My thought is that you can't very well claim the temperament is interesting unless you claim the |20 -17 3> comma is interesting, so you should first name that if you think it deserves a name.
>

It is funny to hear this coming from you. As I recall, you composed a piece in Rodan temperament called Pianodactyl. It included this comma no doubt, whether intentional or unintentional.

Ryan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Avella" <domeofatonement@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Avella" <domeofatonement@> wrote:
> >
> > > Any thought?
> >
> > My thought is that you can't very well claim the temperament is interesting unless you claim the |20 -17 3> comma is interesting, so you should first name that if you think it deserves a name.
> >
>
> It is funny to hear this coming from you. As I recall, you composed a piece in Rodan temperament called Pianodactyl. It included this comma no doubt, whether intentional or unintentional.

Any regular temperament with codimension greater than one will have arbitarily horrible commas, so this won't work as an argument. Of course, it won't have 5-limit commas up the wazoo, and that singles this out among the rodan commas. Still, it has a TE badness figure which is fairly high, meaning there are lots of competing commas which might be of more interest. But don't let that stop you if you think it is interesting! The ampersand is not all that terrific but since miracle is terrific, it gets noticed, and one might just go ahead and list 5-limit commas of all kinds of notable rank two temperaments. But I am wondering what about it draws your interest.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Any regular temperament with codimension greater than one will have arbitarily horrible commas, so this won't work as an argument.

Arbitrary horrible commas? This is THE 5-limit comma of Rodan. Alright then, name for me a better 5-limit mapping for Rodan with a lower complexity.

To explain my reasoning, I was just confused why these 3 temperaments all have names:
http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=46_41&limit=7
http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=46_41&limit=11
http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=46_41&limit=13

When this one doesn't:
http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=46_41&limit=5

Isn't that inconsistent?

Ryan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Avella" <domeofatonement@...> wrote:

> To explain my reasoning, I was just confused why these 3 temperaments all have names:
> http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=46_41&limit=7
> http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=46_41&limit=11
> http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=46_41&limit=13
>
> When this one doesn't:
> http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=46_41&limit=5

Take a look at the logflat badness numbers (x1000):

13-limit: 18.448
11-limit: 23.093
7-limit: 37.112
5-limit: 168.264

What is the generator, in 5-limit terms? Why would one even look at this temperament in the 5-limit, when it seems (if you believe in essential tempering) to be essentially 7-limit?

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Avella" <domeofatonement@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a temperament from Graham's finder that needs your attention. Right now it doesn't have a name in the finder, and I don't believe it is on the xenharmonic wiki. Either way, it could really use a name.
>
> http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=46_41&limit=5
>
> Notice how it has the same 5-limit mapping as Rodan. However, it is also quite unlike Rodan in the sense that we are not mapping prime 7.
>
> So here are the choices it comes down to:
>
> 1.) We could name it Rodan, despite the fact that it doesn't include a mapping for 7.
> 2.) We could name it Tricot, and add it to the family of "cots," e.g. Dicot & Tetracot.
> 3.) We could give it a totally different name for the heck of it.
>
>
> Any thought?
>
>
>
> Ryan
>

On 2/8/2012 12:20 AM, Ryan Avella wrote:
> Here is a temperament from Graham's finder that needs your attention. Right now it doesn't have a name in the finder, and I don't believe it is on the xenharmonic wiki. Either way, it could really use a name.
>
> http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=46_41&limit=5
>
> Notice how it has the same 5-limit mapping as Rodan. However, it is also quite unlike Rodan in the sense that we are not mapping prime 7.
>
> So here are the choices it comes down to:
>
> 1.) We could name it Rodan, despite the fact that it doesn't include a mapping for 7.
> 2.) We could name it Tricot, and add it to the family of "cots," e.g. Dicot& Tetracot.
> 3.) We could give it a totally different name for the heck of it.
>
>
> Any thought?

Supersupermajor was an older name for rodan, or you could just call it rodan. There's already a tricot, 53&70.

http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=53%2C70&limit=5

Unison Vector
[39, -29, 3> (68719476736000:68630377364883)

That's utter madness!

-Mike

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> On 2/8/2012 12:20 AM, Ryan Avella wrote:
> > Here is a temperament from Graham's finder that needs your attention. Right now it doesn't have a name in the finder, and I don't believe it is on the xenharmonic wiki. Either way, it could really use a name.
> >
> > http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=46_41&limit=5
> >
> > Notice how it has the same 5-limit mapping as Rodan. However, it is also quite unlike Rodan in the sense that we are not mapping prime 7.
> >
> > So here are the choices it comes down to:
> >
> > 1.) We could name it Rodan, despite the fact that it doesn't include a mapping for 7.
> > 2.) We could name it Tricot, and add it to the family of "cots," e.g. Dicot& Tetracot.
>
> > 3.) We could give it a totally different name for the heck of it.
> >
> >
> > Any thought?
>
> Supersupermajor was an older name for rodan, or you could just call it
> rodan. There's already a tricot, 53&70.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=53%2C70&limit=5
>
> Unison Vector
> [39, -29, 3> (68719476736000:68630377364883)
>
> That's utter madness!

If you want real 5-limit madness, check out atomic:

http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=4296_16572&limit=5

Maybe you'd like tricot better extended to the 13-limit:

[<1 0 -13 53 -89 -28|, <0 3 29 -95 175 60|]

http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=494_441&limit=13

We could call it "Battaglia".

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:28 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> If you want real 5-limit madness, check out atomic:
>
> http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=4296_16572&limit=5

See, that's on the other side of the uncanny valley though.

> Maybe you'd like tricot better extended to the 13-limit:
>
> [<1 0 -13 53 -89 -28|, <0 3 29 -95 175 60|]
>
> http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=494_441&limit=13
>
> We could call it "Battaglia".

That temperament doesn't even look like me at all. Those who know me
can attest that I'm far less complex and unfortunately sometimes a
little higher in error than that. I'll pass the buck onto Avella.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> Maybe you'd like tricot better extended to the 13-limit:
>
> [<1 0 -13 53 -89 -28|, <0 3 29 -95 175 60|]

LOLOLOLOL

175 generators to get to a single 11? Woooow.

-Igs

On 2/9/2012 4:29 PM, cityoftheasleep wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith"<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>> Maybe you'd like tricot better extended to the 13-limit:
>>
>> [<1 0 -13 53 -89 -28|,<0 3 29 -95 175 60|]
>
> LOLOLOLOL
>
> 175 generators to get to a single 11? Woooow.
>
> -Igs

Yeah, that's more or less my reaction. Surprisingly it shows up on my "grade B" temperament list, which means it must be pretty accurate to make up for that complexity. It's also grade B in the 7-limit version, but the 11-limit is only grade E.

The simpler 53&70 "trimot" gets a grade of G. Not that great as far as accuracy, but at least the complexity is manageable.

[<1 3 16 8 11 7|, <0 -3 -29 -11 -16 -7|]

There's also a 53&123, which as far as I know doesn't have a name. It doesn't look all that appealing to me, so I'll leave it unnamed, but if "trimot" is worth naming, this one is also worth a look.

[<1 3 16 -17 36 7|, <0 -3 -29 42 -69 -7|]

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

> The simpler 53&70 "trimot" gets a grade of G. Not that great as far as
> accuracy, but at least the complexity is manageable.
>
> [<1 3 16 8 11 7|, <0 -3 -29 -11 -16 -7|]

Why not just use 53?