Re: [tuning-math] Glumma
- From: Gene W Smith <genewardsmith@xxxxxxxx>
- To: tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:36:32 -0700
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:31:10 -0700 Carl Lumma <carl@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >! 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?
If that appeals to you more, fine. "Glumma" was because of its close
relation to your scale "Lumma".
____________________________________________________________
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:
