Thanks for the response. I’ll definitely check out those sequencers. My knowledge of temperament is kind of limited at present, I basically know (I think I know at least!) that’s been an issue for hundreds of years, and that in older music (from the 17th century on back, I’m guessing) the scale sounded somewhat different, leading to disagreement over what “period instruments” really means.
In my quantizer (simplified today to move the root latching to the little random generator), each of the 12 tones has a patch which knows its position in the scale and whether it’s used in the scale. It passes up and down either its scale position (if it’s in the scale) or that passed by its neighbor (if it’s not in-scale), allowing it to calculate its breakpoints. Break points for active scale intervals in the quantizer are then based on its position and that of its neighboring intervals, by splitting the difference. (The exceptions are at the ends of the scale, where there’s no upper or lower neighboring interval in the scale. The ends use hard-coded values.) Splitting the difference in the power of two for adjacent intervals on the scale would guarantee the split is fair, proportionally, as it’s the power of 2 that’s being split evenly.
I added the Tonic Only scale mainly to test the system, but noticed it kind of sounds neat when used in random fill mode with a three octave spread. With the “Tonic Only” scale in play, everything is captured and stuffed into the one bin. Does that make sense?
Here’s the umpeenth version of the project. This one plays better when on non-auto fill for the tones. If you’re not on auto, then whatever you play on the midi goes to both sequencers (the manual/auto loop plays through the quantizer). This can lead to interesting loops when you’re running them at different time signatures and/or clock speeds, as the tones play off one another differently, each pass through.