prime-factor-exponent-vectors as accidentals

>if/when i get back into studying Finale, i hope to figure
>out how to use prime-factor-exponent-vectors as accidentals.
>if it turns out that Finale just can't do that, well then ...
>it'll be time to dive back into my own JustMusic software
>project. :)

How would these work as accidentals? Would you write a C, and then a G
with a little mini [ 4/12 ] in front of it, for a 12-et fifith?

hi Chris,

> From: "Christopher Bailey" <cb202@columbia.edu>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 3:24 PM
> Subject: [tuning] prime-factor-exponent-vectors as accidentals>
>
>
> >if/when i get back into studying Finale, i hope to figure
> >out how to use prime-factor-exponent-vectors as accidentals.
> >if it turns out that Finale just can't do that, well then ...
> >it'll be time to dive back into my own JustMusic software
> >project. :)
>
>
> How would these work as accidentals? Would you write a C, and then a G
> with a little mini [ 4/12 ] in front of it, for a 12-et fifith?

you have the right idea ... but the 12edo "5th" above C [0] is G [7/12].

the 1/4-comma meantone "5th" would be G [0 0 1/4].

the Pythagorean "5th" would be G [-1 1].

i know ... as the number of prime-factor increases, this system gets
a little bulky. but i still prefer it above all others ... in large
part, because it allows one to see visualize immediately how any
pitch fits into a lattice-diagram of the tuning.

-monz

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi Chris,
>
>
> > From: "Christopher Bailey" <cb202@c...>
> >
> > > >if/when i get back into studying Finale, i hope to figure
> > > >out how to use prime-factor-exponent-vectors as accidentals.

> > How would these work as accidentals? Would you write a C, and then a G
> > with a little mini [ 4/12 ] in front of it, for a 12-et fifith?
>
>
>
> you have the right idea ... but the 12edo "5th" above C [0] is G [7/12].
>

Right, I meant to write "E" instead of "G".

> the 1/4-comma meantone "5th" would be G [0 0 1/4].
>
> the Pythagorean "5th" would be G [-1 1].
>
>
> i know ... as the number of prime-factor increases, this system gets
> a little bulky. but i still prefer it above all others ... in large
> part, because it allows one to see visualize immediately how any
> pitch fits into a lattice-diagram of the tuning.
>

Yeah, using [0 0 1/4] does seem a bit "bulky". Yet in a charmingly
geeky sort of way.

C Bailey