You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Since fractional monzos are already supported, it could be interesting to extend the support for backslash notation, "edo steps" and ups and downs notation in equal divisions of arbitrary JI intervals.
Most common would be n-edt (t = tritave, 3/1) and n-edf (f = fifth, 3/2), and others would just work as "edx", with x being any JI interval (e.g. n-ed4/3). Notation such as 4\13edt and 4\13ed3 (and any equivalent form of ED/-ED/ed/-ed/...) seems frequent enough that I think it should be supported (that also includes n*m*-edo, which is currently not recognized as equivalent fo n*m*).
As for ups and downs notation, I think you'd just have to compute the mapping for 3/2 in that equal division, considering the new tempered octave, before naming the intervals as usual.
I suppose the "EDO" tables could be extended to arbitrary equal divisions, as well. In that case, prime 2 would have to be shown in non-edo systems, and other primes could be hidden if tuned purely.
What do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello (again)!
Since fractional monzos are already supported, it could be interesting to extend the support for backslash notation, "edo steps" and ups and downs notation in equal divisions of arbitrary JI intervals.
Most common would be n-edt (t = tritave, 3/1) and n-edf (f = fifth, 3/2), and others would just work as "edx", with x being any JI interval (e.g. n-ed4/3). Notation such as 4\13edt and 4\13ed3 (and any equivalent form of ED/-ED/ed/-ed/...) seems frequent enough that I think it should be supported (that also includes n*m*-edo, which is currently not recognized as equivalent fo n*m*).
As for ups and downs notation, I think you'd just have to compute the mapping for 3/2 in that equal division, considering the new tempered octave, before naming the intervals as usual.
I suppose the "EDO" tables could be extended to arbitrary equal divisions, as well. In that case, prime 2 would have to be shown in non-edo systems, and other primes could be hidden if tuned purely.
What do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: