144-tet

> C Bailey:
>
>> I was wondering if this was 144-tet, as a sort of even-better-than-
>>72
>> approximation of Just.

> Paul Erlich:
>unfortunately, 144-equal won't do that. but her super-just scale is

Well, I assume it's not a worse approximation, except for maybe a
consistency issue. Are there other issues, or is it just that other
higher-than-72 ets are much better choices?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:
>
>
> > C Bailey:
> >
> >> I was wondering if this was 144-tet, as a sort of even-better-
than-
> >>72
> >> approximation of Just.
>
> > Paul Erlich:
> >unfortunately, 144-equal won't do that. but her super-just scale is
>
>
> Well, I assume it's not a worse approximation, except for maybe a
> consistency issue.

right.

> Are there other issues, or is it just that other
> higher-than-72 ets are much better choices?

the latter, i guess. to see the errors in the 5-limit for tunings of
this size, look at the first graph on http://www.sonic-
arts.org/dict/eqtemp.htm and mouse-over (don't click) "zoom: 100"
above the graph. you can see that while 72, 144, and higher multiples
of 72 share the same errors, 171 and 270 are 5-limit just even by
johnny's standards. 171 also extends this property through the 9-
limit, and 270 through the 13-limit . . .