Re: [tuning-math] Re: geometric complexity
- From: Gene W Smith <genewardsmith@xxxxxxxx>
- To: tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 20:54:17 -0700
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:55:22 -0400 "Paul H. Erlich"
<PErlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Just redo the 5-limit and see how everyone feels about the
> rankings, and off we go . . . (but i'll keep harping on the question
> of a
> more elegant metric)
Which 5-limit temperaments do you regard as essential? How would you rate
128/125, 135/128, 250/243, 78732/78125,
393216/390625, 3125/3072 or 648/625? How about the funky systems such as
25/24, 27/25, 16/15, 10/9, 9/8? Where do you draw that line?
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free $5 Love Reading
Risk Free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/wlyPtD/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/wHYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
tuning-math-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
____________________________________________________________
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:
