Re: [tuning-math] Glumma
- From: Carl Lumma <carl@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:31:10 -0700
>! 6 complete 7-limit tetrads, not proper.
>!
>! 5/4----------15/8
>! /:\`. .'/
>! / : \ `. .' /
>! / : \ 15/14 /
>! 7/6-----------7/4 \ /:\ /
>! \`. / ,/ `. \ : /
>! \ `. / .'/ `.\:/ \
>! \ 1/1--/--------3/2 \
>! \ /:\`/ / ,'/ `. \
>! \ : / `. /.' / `.\
>! / \:/ \ 12/7--/--------9/7
>! / 7/5 \ : /
>! / ,' `. \ : /
>! / .' '. \:/
>! 8/5-----------6/5
>
>
>It certainly has more 3:2's. It has the same smallest
>1-step interval as glumma, but has a smaller largest 1-step
>interval. The Lumma stability is about the same. In your
>original post, you say it is more regular than glumma in
>terms of variation in step size. How did you get that?
Gene,
Maybe we should call this glumma, and use the 'recta'
designation for the original glumma?
-Carl
____________________________________________________________
To learn how to configure this list via e-mail (subscribe,
unsubscribe, etc.), send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with the subject line "info tuning-math". Or visit the
website: < //www.freelists.org/list/tuning-math > .
Other related posts:
