16 Dec
2002
16 Dec
'02
11:56 p.m.
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 04.25, Tim Goetze wrote:
First of all, fp *is* equivalent to integers for all practical
matters, as long as you don't do anything that results in values that
don't fit in the mantissa. Adds and multiplications with integer
values are perfectly safe, as long as the result fits.
That said, precision *is* an objective - but having 32+ actual bits
of accuracy per sample is not. Again, as long as you lock to the
timeline, there's no real problem.
//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 ---
Paul Davis wrote:
Try that with 4:5, 5:6, etc, and you'll see why it doesn't work. At
some point, you must start thinking in some other way.
play this kind of music as part of their own
culture. i've also
heard and watched both zakir hussain and v. vikaryam count talas,
and believe me, they don't do what you propose a musician would
do.
i believe they do more or less the same. you only hear the
beats they emphasize, and that's why they call it three and
a half, not seven. it's a little like in western music, you
say it's 3/4 but you might as well say 6/8 -- they only
differ in emphasis, or groove. hmm. i'm
not sure of this. i'm not entirely clear what you mean by
these nomenclatures. do you mean "1 beat per measure,
beat-note-value = a third note" and "1 beat per measure,
beat-note-value = a quarter note"? or something else.
yes, 1/3 and 1/4 time but it's just one of many examples. if
you don't implement running tick/beat counters in integer,
there are a lot of pitfalls you have to be very careful to
avoid if precision is an objective.