16 Dec
2002
16 Dec
'02
11:40 p.m.
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 03.57, Tim Goetze wrote:
because adding 1/3 six times doesn't give the same as 1/4
added eight times.
Actually, it does with our new, nice 1920 ticks/beat. :-)
Either way, when would you do that?
And yet another thing: If you *rely* on accumulating indefinitely,
without listening to what the sequencer says, your plugin is broken.
Just follow the timeline, and everything will be fine. Doesn't matter
if you subdivide "1 bar" into 3 or 4 sections, as long as you lock
properly to the timeline.
//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 ---
David Olofson wrote:
you don't really count to 19 as a musician, you'd make it
from 2, 3 and 4 just as you do with all other odd rhythmns.
Yeah, I'd count 3 x 1..3 or something, but that's besides the point.
1) it is
simply not the way counting time as a musician works.
if your measure said 3.5 / 2, you'd count 7 quarters.
In that case yes - but with longer bars, I'd try to find a
reference in between my notes. Let's take Paul's nice example. To
play the 9 1/2 part, I'd really rather not count to 19, but to 9
- and then I'd expect the next bar to start *in between* my 9 and
10; on the "and", that is. 2) the first time somebody uses 1/3 and 1/4 at the
same time,
accumulating beat algorithms don't give the same result
reliably where they should.
Why not?