re: Equal Temperament Dictionary entry question

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/eqtemp.htm

>
> don't confuse my use of x, y, and z in the vector with the
> dimensions of the graph.
>

No, I understand the "matrix [x y z]" notation. (Don't you have a help
page on that though, somewhere; maybe you can link it in? OR maybe it
was Graham Breed or someone. . . .)

In regards to the answer to my question, about the graph itself,
here is an explanation that Paul Erlich sent me that could be included,
perhaps, in the page itself (maybe just the 2nd of the 3 paragraphs
would suffice):

>
>one is the just 3:2 / just 4:3 line
>one is the just 5:3 / just 6:5 line
>one is the just 5:4 / just 8:5 line
>
>the farther a point is from a given axis, the larger the errors in
>the tuning corresponding to the point, of the intervals corresponding
>to the axis.
>
>the basic concept is the same as thato of Dalitz plots in physics,
>and something else in chemistry, and the Chalmers tetrachord plots
>which were inspired by the latter.
>

I still have a question though: technically speaking, if "distance from
line" is all that matters, each "point" (representing an ET) could
theoretically be in two places, right? (Or more?) (Because "distance"
could be graphed on either side of each of the lines.. . )

Another question: what about those cool charts at the end of Paul's 22tet
paper, showing the "accuracy" of various ETs? Those are very clear and
useful, would seem appropriate for this page as well. . . . (Also, they
include accuracy up to the 7-limit, which is useful.)

cb

hi Christopher,

> From: "Christopher Bailey" <cb202@columbia.edu>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 7:43 AM
> Subject: [tuning] re: Equal Temperament Dictionary entry question
>

>
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/eqtemp.htm
>
> >
> > don't confuse my use of x, y, and z in the vector with the
> > dimensions of the graph.
> >
>
>
> No, I understand the "matrix [x y z]" notation. (Don't you have a help
> page on that though, somewhere; maybe you can link it in? OR maybe it
> was Graham Breed or someone. . . .)

i just posted a link to it yesterday in answer to another question:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/article/article.htm#prime

> In regards to the answer to my question, about the graph itself,
> here is an explanation that Paul Erlich sent me that could be included,
> perhaps, in the page itself (maybe just the 2nd of the 3 paragraphs
> would suffice):
>
>
> >
> >one is the just 3:2 / just 4:3 line
> >one is the just 5:3 / just 6:5 line
> >one is the just 5:4 / just 8:5 line
> >
> >the farther a point is from a given axis, the larger the errors in
> >the tuning corresponding to the point, of the intervals corresponding
> >to the axis.
> >
> >the basic concept is the same as thato of Dalitz plots in physics,
> >and something else in chemistry, and the Chalmers tetrachord plots
> >which were inspired by the latter.

thanks for the suggestion ... done.
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/eqtemp.htm

> I still have a question though: technically speaking, if "distance from
> line" is all that matters, each "point" (representing an ET) could
> theoretically be in two places, right? (Or more?) (Because "distance"
> could be graphed on either side of each of the lines.. . )

nope. each EDO is plotted at the point which shows the error for
*all six intervals simultaneously*, which occurs at only one unique
spot on the diagram.

> Another question: what about those cool charts at the end of Paul's 22tet
> paper, showing the "accuracy" of various ETs? Those are very clear and
> useful, would seem appropriate for this page as well. . . . (Also, they
> include accuracy up to the 7-limit, which is useful.)

yup, i agree ... in fact, i made charts exactly like that myself for
EDOs up to 72, back in 1993, before i knew paul or anyone or anything
else on this list. so i'll ask him directly: paul, should i incorporate
those charts into my page, or just link to your paper?

-monz
"all roads lead to n^0"

Monz,

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> so i'll ask him directly: paul, should i incorporate
> those charts into my page, or just link to your paper?

Yes! and NO! (he said, answering for Paul...)

Joe, when permission can be granted, PLEASE incorporate the material directly on your site, unless you plan on running (at regular intervals) a link checking program. There is *nothing* quite as frustrating as a broken link, not to mention that the material may have vanished altogether.

For any material you can get permission for, have a copy on your site, and link internally. The only way to go...

Cheers,
Jon