Topic: Gene's 10985/10976 or (14/13)^3 vs. 5/4 as cantonisma
1 scales
| File | Description | Notes | Period (ยข) |
|---|---|---|---|
| cantonpentamint58 | rank-3 variant on Gene Ward Smith's Cantonpenta with just 12:13:14 | 58 | 1200.0 |
Thread (2 messages)
From: Margo Schulter (2013-08-19) Subject: Gene's 10985/10976 or (14/13)^3 vs. 5/4 as cantonisma This is a quick executive summary on a longer post in which I propose the name cantonisma for the comma described in 2010 by Gene Ward Smith equal to the difference between 5/4 and (14/13)^3 at 10985/10976 (1.419 cents). <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/89597> The cantonisma arises in a minutely retuned expansion of Gene's Cantonpenta scale, his original version being a tempering of his just 12-note Canton tuning in 271-EDO, with 14/13 (+7 fifths) virtually just at 128.413 cents, and a fifth at 704.059 cents. <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/96595> My minute retuning was to set the fifth at precisely (224/13)^1/7 or 704.043 cents for a just 14/13 (128.298 cents), then expanding Gene's 12-note Cantonpenta into a 17-MOS system which, if spelled as Gb-A#, has the symmetries of Cantonpenta if D is the 1/1 (the point of symmetry, with 8 fifths down and 8 fifths up). By expanding this 17-MOS to a 29-MOS, and then placing two 29-MOS chains at 58.786 cents apart to achieve a just 12:13:14 division (with 14/13 and 7/6 pure, and thus also 13/12), I arrived at a 58-note rank-3 system where +21 fifths produces a just (14/13)^3 or 2744/2197 at 384.895 cents, a cantonisma narrow of 5/4 -- some half a cent more accurate than the schismatic approximation at 8192/6561 (384.360 cents). This 2744/2197 approximation at 384.9 cents in 16 locations, plus another 16 locations where a mapping of -13 fifths (447.446 cents) less the spacing generator of 58.786 cents produces a major third at 388.660 cents (2.347 cents wide of 5/4), result in 5/4 approximations within 2.35 cents of just at 32 of 58 locations. For this 58-note system I propose the name Cantonpentamint-58, the "-mint," as in Peppermint, implying a rank-3 system with two MOS chains spaced for a just 7/6 from tone (+2 fifths) plus spacing. Here this means (2, 704.043, 58.786), as compared with Peppermint at (2, 704.096, 58.680). Gene's Canton and Cantonpenta are of special interest because of their 12-note structure with discontinuous chains of fifths. While Cantonpenta in 271-EDO has a fifth almost identical to Keenan Pepper's Noble Fifth tuning (704.096 cents) and the rank-3 Peppermint, Gene's discontinuous 12-note structure makes his concept quite unique, and very creative! However, my special interest in this briefer post is the cantonisma at 10985/10976 itself, a comma noted by Gene in 2010 which is beautifully exemplified by a minutely retuned and then expanded version of his Cantonpenta. ! cantonpentamint58.scl ! rank-3 variant on Gene Ward Smith's Cantonpenta with just 12:13:14 58 ! 27.51001 48.51128 58.78570 79.78697 107.29698 128.29824 138.57267 176.80952 187.08394 208.08521 235.59522 256.59649 266.87091 287.87218 315.38219 336.38346 346.65788 384.89473 395.16916 416.17043 443.68043 464.68170 474.95613 495.95739 523.46740 544.46867 554.74309 575.74436 603.25437 624.25564 634.53006 672.76691 683.04134 704.04261 731.55261 752.55388 762.82831 783.82957 811.33958 832.34085 842.61527 880.85213 891.12655 912.12782 939.63783 960.63910 970.91352 991.91479 1019.42480 1040.42606 1050.70049 1088.93734 1099.21176 1120.21303 1147.72304 1168.72431 1178.99873 2/1 With many thanks, Margo Schulter mschulter@...
From: genewardsmith (2013-09-05) Subject: Re: Gene's 10985/10976 or (14/13)^3 vs. 5/4 as cantonisma --- In [email protected], Margo Schulter <mschulter@...> wrote: > > This is a quick executive summary on a longer post in which I > propose the name cantonisma for the comma described in 2010 by > Gene Ward Smith equal to the difference between 5/4 and (14/13)^3 > at 10985/10976 (1.419 cents). Thanks for the name! I've added it to the Xenwiki comma list. Tempering out the cantonisma is a feature 224, 270 and 494, among others, have in common.