A side note:

[Joe Monzo:]
>A side note: those who have looked at my webpage of this will see
that I've changed 'tET' to 'EDO' in every case. I did that because
Woolhouse specifically states that the 'octave' is always to be a 1:2
ratio.

[Paul Erlich:]
> Seems to me like 'tET' would be better then, since 'tET's always
assume a 1:2 octave, at least around here (where we discuss such
things as 27.35-tET).

Just thought that I'd add that I originally started using EDO (equally
divided octave) because I was personally dissatisfied with how the "T"
in "ET" was historically and (lacking a better term) politically tied
to twelve-tone equal temperament (or twelve-tone equal temperament
specifically, and tempering in general)... the "T" in "ET" had a lot
of baggage that didn't always seem to be a good match for what I was
trying to say or do... equally divided octave just seemed to me to be
a better overall fit: more specific, more neutral... and while I tend
to agree with Paul that it really is pretty clear that "tET's always
assume a 1:2 octave" (and I use "e" as both a less cumbersome
abbreviation of EDO and as an assumption of the "O" in EDO), I also
think that if "27.35-tET" really is supposed to be saying a 3/2
divided into 16 equal parts -- or something else as specific as
that -- then some easy to decipher shorthand that says just that would
be preferable... perhaps something like (2:3 / 16)e, though I really
haven't given it a lot of thought... I guess I'd say that the ideal
(for me) 'equal tag' would be one that is flexible (so as to cover
exceptions, like the octave assumption for instance), specific (so as
to bypass the accumulation of rounding errors and whatnot), and easy
to decipher (so it can be quickly memorized and internalized).

Dan

On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 00:59:47 -0800, "D.Stearns" <stearns@capecod.net>
wrote:

>Just thought that I'd add that I originally started using EDO (equally
>divided octave) because I was personally dissatisfied with how the "T"
>in "ET" was historically and (lacking a better term) politically tied
>to twelve-tone equal temperament (or twelve-tone equal temperament
>specifically, and tempering in general)...

I just think of the "T" in "ET" as standing for "tuning".
--
see my music page ---> +--<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/music.html>--
Thryomanes /"If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
(Herman Miller) / thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
moc.oi @ rellimh <-/ there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

[Herman Miller:]
>I just think of the "T" in "ET" as standing for "tuning".

Well I like the sounds of that better as well, and if that were it's
standard meaning (or implication) then I guess I'd have little to
squawk about (except perhaps it's vagueness, or lack of
specificness)...

Dan

>>I just think of the "T" in "ET" as standing for "tuning".

>Well I like the sounds of that better as well, and if that were it's
>standard meaning (or implication) then I guess I'd have little to
>squawk about (except perhaps it's vagueness, or lack of
>specificness)...

"ET" stands for "Equal Temperament"

On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 19:40:18 -0500, "Paul H. Erlich"
<PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com> wrote:

>"ET" stands for "Equal Temperament"

Right, but there's no reason it can't ALSO stand for "equal tuning" in
cases like 15-tET or 23-TET, which aren't temperaments. Actually, saying
"15-equal, 23-equal" (which might be abbreviated 15EQ, 23EQ) is probably
good enough. But I've always used "equal tuning" to describe scales like
13-note per octave equal tuning, so the possible ambiguity of ET (out of
context) doesn't bother me.
--
see my music page ---> +--<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/music.html>--
Thryomanes /"If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
(Herman Miller) / thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
moc.oi @ rellimh <-/ there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin