1 Mar
2005
1 Mar
'05
11:21 a.m.
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:57:33 -0500
Spencer Russell <Spencer.Russell(a)oberlin.edu> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:04:02AM -0500, Joe Hartley
wrote:
Uhhh, wha??? Do you mean turning the knob left sends out, say,
CC (control change) data on channel 1, and turning it right sends it
out on channel 2?
I can't fathom having a knob that controls parameter A when I turn it
to the left, and parameter B when I turn it to the right. If I turn
a little too far and reduce my parameter beyond what I want, I have to
keep turning that way until I get to the value I want, instead of turning
it slightly the other way?
That's so unintuitive it'd make my brain melt. Dunno about anyone else.
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.
I think I would prefer the dial to send relative information as
to what direction it's turning, so that you can have more than
127 different values controlled by one knob. It's not exceedingly
difficult to take a wrapping controller and make it functionally
the same, but if the encoder just stops at 0 and 127, it makes
that impossible. I do agree, though, that the wrapping doesn't
seem like a very good idea.
Keep in mind that there's no MIDI granularity of greater than 128.
You can't have a parameter that's < 0 or > 127. That's a fundamental
part of the MIDI spec.
maybe I've completely misunderstood. If I have, I'd be happy to be
challenged to think about the user interface in a whole new way.
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa