On 14.07.2009 17:00, David Johnston wrote:
> I don't see how reducing
> semitone precision to .5 would make it better [...] unless we
> just decide that accuracy isn't really important, which might actually
> be the case -- just do a simple linear interp and display with only
> one decimal of precision
Yes, that was the idea -- have just table based semitones (in 0.5
semitone steps, i.e. 49 entries in the table). And even (maybe) drop the
interpolation. I.e. when switching from procentual to semitone mode, the
next semitone-based value would be set.
> That said, I would personally like to have better than .5 semitone
> precision. I was actually a little worried about limiting it to .1
> precision when I set up the controls -- I wasn't sure if a super-anal
> musician would object.
I can't understand that since for the fine control there is still the
procentual mode. And I think no musician tunes in 0.1 semitone steps.
I.e. the probably think "this should be a major third up". And when they
hear that that's still not what they want they think "errmm.... a little
bit higher" -- but not "0.3 semitones higher". OK, some may think in
terms of 0.5 semitones (i.e. this should be between a major third and a
fourth), but not finer. They may hear it, but I think these terms
(cents) are not that common in the musical education that people think
in that categories.
What *would* be very useful though is the ability to toggle the modes in
the opposite direction -- to be able to directly switch between
procentual and semitone mode while staying in timestretch mode.
> Those >> and << labels always seemed superfluous to me, for
They are not very useful, agreed, but they do no harm too (at least
with regard to the binary size)
Received on 2009-07-14