18 Dec
2002
18 Dec
'02
10:40 a.m.
On Wednesday 18 December 2002 14.43, Tim Goetze wrote:
all of them.
Well, you've already disqualified at least one on this list, I think.
(And I don't count myself, of course.)
Yeah - but then your beat sync'ed effect suddently switches from 4ths
to 16ths...
David Olofson wrote:
[TIMEBASE, aka ppq]
If it's not fixed, it's another parameter you have to get from the
timeline, before you can do anything useful with a musical time
value. That's all, basically.
Either way, it's *still* floating point. Why
use 1.0 when you can
use something else and get something slightly more logical
(maybe...) than 1.0 ticks/beat, and that allows you to express
*lots* of values in exact form?
the only thing i object to is that you want to assign a fixed
value. it is a severe limitation, but it gains us absolutely
nothing. at least you don't give a reason why it needs to be
fixed. please, please, please, ask your favourite musician
friends.
read good books about it. listen to indian, jazz, techno,
blues, classical western, classical indian, japanese, rap,
whatever music: rhythmn is integral.
Well, which ones qualify? rhythmn is always based on one integral periodic
'pulse'. if
time is not divisible by this atom, there is no musical time.
From a theoretical POV, I would agree, but that
doesn't seem to be
the best way to think of it at all times.
the float meter proposal is like using floats to count
your
fingers.
Why not? Some people have half fingers. ;-)
If you really
*want* a bar that's shortened by a fractional beat
(which is not all that unusual, even in pop music), what do you
do...? How do you ensure that plugins that beat sync don't freak
out when you multiply the meter to get integers?
if you shorten, for example, 4/4 by 1/16, it's 15/16. if you
shorten it by 1/32, it's 31/32 etc.
...or 32nds.
if you want to shorten 4/4 by, say, 1/16 +
0.00212266328763,
you're violating the very principle of the organization of
musical time.
Well, I can't say for sure. All I know is that I do that kind of
things by "abusing" the tempo map instead, since that's the only way
you can do it in most sequencers.
you're better off simply inserting a new meter
where the shortened measure ends.
How would you do that? The meter just defines the subdivision of
musical time. You can't just make a "skip" in musical time - unless
you're seriously suggesting that this should be implemented as a
transport "jump" to skip the last part of the shortened measure.
(That would be rather nasty towards many kinds of plugins, especially
direct-from-disk samplers, HDRs and the like.)
and what seems to be the problem with beat sync? the
relation
of the meter to TIMEBASE is part of the tempo information, so
all info you need, you have.
No. Where did the *real* beat value go?
again, i strongly recommend you do some research on
music and
its theory and then round off your studies with some sequencer
implementation reading, or even better, writing.
please excuse the harsh word: your assumptions about these
fields lack in realism.
*heh* Well, you seem to have all the right answers - so why do you
tend to ignore the questions that cannot simply be disregarded as "in
conflict with traditional theory"...?
I think fp arithmetics have more effect or accuracy than traditional
ways of thinking about meters - but I must be wrong, then.
//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 ---