12 Dec
2002
12 Dec
'02
5 p.m.
On Thursday 12 December 2002 17.13, Steve Harris wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 03:10:07PM +0000, Nathaniel
Virgo wrote:
I disagree. The implicit information that note_pitch brings is that
each note is placed *approximately* at the theoretical pitch of the
corresponding note in a scale. This lets your event processors think
in terms of simplified theory (such as 12t - tuning is irrelevant),
while you can *still* tweak the tuning of each note to your taste
afterwards, by using a suitable scale converter.
//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 -'
.- M A I A -------------------------------------------------.
| The Multimedia Application Integration Architecture |
`----------------------------> http://www.linuxdj.com/maia -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
The only real disadvantage to this scheme is that
some
note-processing algorithms probably don't work in relative pitch.
For example, if for some reason you wanted to map all 12 tones
of a normal scale onto just the white keys, while keeping the
pitch bend range at 2 semitones, you wouldn't be able to do it in
this system. The note_pitch way of doing things doesn't solve
this either, come to that, it just makes the problem less
obvious.
I'm coming to this conclusion too, I think that note numbering is
just a red herring: you still dont have enough scale metadata to do
any processing on it, unless its ET, and then its trivial whatever
your pitch representation.