On Sunday 15 December 2002 18.31, Steve Harris wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 06:49:01PM +0100, David
Olofson wrote:
I don't get it. If you're supposed to
place the scale converter
*first*, then how are you supposed to be able to apply anything
like traditional music theory, rather than pure, continous pitch
based theory? You will have to know the *exact* temperament of
the scale (to decode the input, and to generate output in the
same scale), even if you're only worried about notes.
That holds true for per-note descriptions too. The only way you can
improve in it is with *extensive* scale metadata. Which we dont
have and dont plan to have.
You're still missing the point. Note pitch is <something>/note, which
is a linear scale. With 12t, it's identical to 12tET. This is very
easy to process.
np[0] = np_in;
np[1] = np_in + 3.0/12.0;
np[2] = np_in + 7.0/12.0;
gives you a chord. (I'm assuming we're using (1/12)/note, so the
formats become equivalent is you assume ET scale or scaleless.)
Now, you can apply a scale converter with a pure 12t scale, and you
*still* get the "same" chord, only sounding slightly different. (If
you're close to the indended key, it'll sound better, otherwise
worse.)
I don't see why this is so hard to grasp.
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. |
| RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. |
`--------------------------->
http://olofson.net/audiality -'
---
http://olofson.net ---
http://www.reologica.se ---