Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning nonoctave madness

I've updated my little nonoctave ETs chart and
thought I'd share:

Some non-octave equal-step tunings as
subsets of conventional equal temperaments:
--------------------------------------------

"Alpha" 9thb3/2 78.0¢ steps
15-ET /1 = 80.0¢ steps vs. 1170¢ octaves
31-ET /2 = 77.4¢ steps vs. 1218¢ octaves
46-ET /3 = 78.3¢ steps vs. 1188¢ octaves

"Beta" 11thb3/2 63.8¢ steps
19-ET /1 = 63.2¢ steps vs. 1212¢ octaves

"Gamma" 20thb3/2 35.1¢ steps
34-ET /1 = 35.3¢ steps vs. 1193¢ octaves

"88-CET" 88.0¢ steps
14-ET /1 = 85.7¢ steps vs. 1232¢ octaves
27-ET /2 = 88.9¢ steps vs. 1176¢ octaves
41-ET /3 = 87.8¢ steps vs. 1208¢ octaves

"Bohlen-Pierce" 13thb3 146.3¢ steps
8-ET /1 = 150.0¢ steps vs. 1170¢ octaves
33-ET /4 = 145.5¢ steps vs. 1228¢ octaves
41-ET /5 = 146.3¢ steps vs. 1198¢ octaves

No doubt Yahoo will mangle my unicode. Sigh.

Talking points:

1. Alpha is in some sense the least octavey.
2. BP and 88-CET are both aspects of 41-ET!
3. Beta is very close to 19-ET.
4. Gamma is very close to 34-ET.

-Carl

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Alpha is still a half cent away from 31

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> I've updated my little nonoctave ETs chart and
> thought I'd share:
>
> Some non-octave equal-step tunings as
> subsets of conventional equal temperaments:
> --------------------------------------------
>
> "Alpha" 9thâ3/2 78.0ï¿½ steps
> 15-ET /1 = 80.0ï¿½ steps vs. 1170ï¿½ octaves
> 31-ET /2 = 77.4ï¿½ steps vs. 1218ï¿½ octaves
> 46-ET /3 = 78.3ï¿½ steps vs. 1188ï¿½ octaves
>
> "Beta" 11thâ3/2 63.8ï¿½ steps
> 19-ET /1 = 63.2ï¿½ steps vs. 1212ï¿½ octaves
>
> "Gamma" 20thâ3/2 35.1ï¿½ steps
> 34-ET /1 = 35.3ï¿½ steps vs. 1193ï¿½ octaves
>
> "88-CET" 88.0ï¿½ steps
> 14-ET /1 = 85.7ï¿½ steps vs. 1232ï¿½ octaves
> 27-ET /2 = 88.9ï¿½ steps vs. 1176ï¿½ octaves
> 41-ET /3 = 87.8ï¿½ steps vs. 1208ï¿½ octaves
>
> "Bohlen-Pierce" 13thâ3 146.3ï¿½ steps
> 8-ET /1 = 150.0ï¿½ steps vs. 1170ï¿½ octaves
> 33-ET /4 = 145.5ï¿½ steps vs. 1228ï¿½ octaves
> 41-ET /5 = 146.3ï¿½ steps vs. 1198ï¿½ octaves
>
> No doubt Yahoo will mangle my unicode. Sigh.
>
> Talking points:
>
> 1. Alpha is in some sense the least octavey.
> 2. BP and 88-CET are both aspects of 41-ET!
> 3. Beta is very close to 19-ET.
> 4. Gamma is very close to 34-ET.
>
> -Carl
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

I wrote:
> Some non-octave equal-step tunings as
> subsets of conventional equal temperaments:
> --------------------------------------------
>
> "Alpha" 9thb3/2 78.0¢ steps
> 15-ET /1 = 80.0¢ steps vs. 1170¢ octaves
> 31-ET /2 = 77.4¢ steps vs. 1218¢ octaves
> 46-ET /3 = 78.3¢ steps vs. 1188¢ octaves
>
> "Beta" 11thb3/2 63.8¢ steps
> 19-ET /1 = 63.2¢ steps vs. 1212¢ octaves
>
> "Gamma" 20thb3/2 35.1¢ steps
> 34-ET /1 = 35.3¢ steps vs. 1193¢ octaves
>
> "88-CET" 88.0¢ steps
> 14-ET /1 = 85.7¢ steps vs. 1232¢ octaves
> 27-ET /2 = 88.9¢ steps vs. 1176¢ octaves
> 41-ET /3 = 87.8¢ steps vs. 1208¢ octaves
>
> "Bohlen-Pierce" 13thb3 146.3¢ steps
> 8-ET /1 = 150.0¢ steps vs. 1170¢ octaves
> 33-ET /4 = 145.5¢ steps vs. 1228¢ octaves
> 41-ET /5 = 146.3¢ steps vs. 1198¢ octaves
>
> No doubt Yahoo will mangle my unicode. Sigh.

Yup, it converted my root signs to "b"s, at
least in my browser.

-Carl