11 Dec
2002
11 Dec
'02
12:34 p.m.
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 13.59, David Gerard Matthews wrote:
Steve Harris wrote:
So do I, definitely.
There has never been an argument about <something>/octave, and there
no longer is an argument about 1.0/octave.
The "argument" is about whether or not we should have a scale related
pitch control type *as well*. It's really more of a hint than an
actual data type, as you could just assume "1tET" and use both as
1.0/octave.
The need for 1.0/note or similar arrise when you want to work with
something like 12t without deciding on the exact tuning, and also
when you want to write "simple" event processor plugins that think it
terms of notes rather than actual pitch.
//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 ---
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:40:18 +0000, Nathaniel
Virgo wrote:
I vote 1.0/octave. I can't really say I can think of a better way
though.
Personally I'd leave scales out of the API and let the host deal
with it, sticking to 1.0/octave throughout, but I can see the
advantages of this as well.
We could put it to a vote ;)
- Steve