Talk:Neutral third

message: Would people object to me re-writing this article to consider the just neutral third to be more fundamental?  The "quarter-tone" neutral third is only an approximation to this third.  Other equally-tempered tuning systems, such as 31 equal temperament, 41 equal temperament, and 53 equal temperament approximate this interval with other intervals.  The closeness of the fit is defined by the closeness to the just interval.  The 350 cents interval has little or no significance outside of the 24 equal temperament.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazort (talk • contribs) 00:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the just neutral third is necessarily more fundamental. It depends on where you're coming from. If you're working with 24-EDO and decide you like the sound of the neutral third, you can't really be said to be approximating the just interval, because the sonority you're using is the one you're hearing. — Gwalla | Talk 23:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The difference between the quarter-tone neutral third and just neutral third (about 2.6 cents) is below the threshold for comprehension by most humans, which is about 5 cents from what I've read.  For comparison it's only a tiny bit larger than the difference between a perfect fifth in just intonation and 12-EDO.  It's more of a theoretical quibble than about the actual sound of it.  Cazort (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral vs three-quarter third

message: Does anyone know much about the occurrence of this interval in the classical music of India?  This would be an important and valuable addition to this page.  Cazort (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request: Indian music

message: I have added audio examples to the article. Hyacinth (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested audio

message: The article contains the following paragraph that I find puzzling:
:Neutral thirds expressed in the form of a ratio of two whole numbers can also be considered as the interval between the harmonics of the same order. For instance, an undecimal neutral third, with a ratio of 11:9, is the interval between harmonics 11 and 9. The fundamental is then four octaves and a tone (9:1) below the lower of the two tones, or four octaves and a narrow fourth (11:1) below the higher of the two tones – or, if octaves are neglected, a tone (9:8) below the lower note and a narrow fourth (11:8) below the higher one.
Not only don't I see why it may be important to know that the interval expressed as a ratio of two whole numbers also is the interval between harmonics of the same order, with a fundamental equal to 1 (this is true, but what's the point?), I also fail to see why is it important to know how distant the fundamental of these two harmonics is, or what it becomes if octaves are neglected. The example given is the ratio 11:9. If octaves are neglected, the fundamental becomes 8 and the distances are 9:8 for the lower note, 11:8 for the higher one. So what?
Considering that all intervals (and not neutral thirds exclusively) expressed in ratios of whole numbers can also be seen as intervals between harmonics of the same order, I cannot figure out why it is important to say this here. This seems to belong to the definition of the harmonic series as a series of whole numbers. I see that created this paragraph myself in December 2017, trying to clarify another one that said that the fundamental of the undecimal neutral third [11:9] "implied a root a tone lower than the lower of the two tones" – which not only was obscure, but also was wrong (it is true only if one neglects octaves). The initial purpose may have been to explain that a neutral third is made of a tone plus a neutral second, but here again, I don't see the point.
I'd suggest to remove this paragraph entirely, unless some reader has another opinion. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I remove this paragraph now (after all, I had written it myself, in this form at least). If anyone has objections, just say so. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentals of ratios?