1 Mar
2005
1 Mar
'05
10:04 a.m.
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:02:31 +0100
Mario Lang <mlang(a)delysid.org> wrote:
Frank Barknecht <fbar(a)footils.org> writes:
I'm with Mario on this. The last thing I'd want to have happen is to
have a parameter wrap from full off to full on because the controller
sent out a value of 3..2..1..0..127.
If I put my master volume on such a control, and I'm trying to turn down
the volume with a rapid leftward twist because I've go a feedback loop
somewhere, I *really* don't want it to wrap to full volume after full off!!
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
I *heard* that the Behringer is
"broken" in this regard in that it
just stops to send data when one end is reached (that is, it stays at
0 or 127 without wrapping around at all). I'd be glad to hear if this
is true or not,
Yes, it is, and I consider this behaviour the only sensible.
For me, the other dials (those that wrap) are broken, and
they are a serious accessibility hassle.