On 26 Sep 2009 at 17:49, John Blane wrote: > Um, I think you quite obviously missed the context of my trying to > assist you.
The context was the thread launched by my post, so that's the context I was using. You appear to have been using a different context. The fact that I didn't detect that is lamentable, but hardly my fault, given how little of what you say you intended was not explicitly stated in your response. On the other hand, I was pretty explicit about what I was looking for, a plugin for Audacity, or a standalone piece of software that would do the job. > I never suggested anything about inputting them into Finale at all. > You can determine the tempo with Finale while you use any other > source for playback. Get it? Well, I've been doing that already, in fact. If your words had been clear that this was what you were suggesting, I'm pretty sure I would have caught it, given that I've already been doing it. Doing it that way is actually pretty unwieldy, as a matter of fact, as well as highly inaccurate, except for the average tempo of the whole piece. It's certainly easy enough to calculate the timing for, say, 6 measures of the Pachelbel in Finale, but selecting those same 6 measures in the waveform of a recording is going to be highly inaccurate. And once I know the timing on those 6 measures, why would I then need to use Finale? I already know how many beats it is, and I know how long it took, so I can use simple arithmetic to figure out what the average BPM in the passage is. And, of course, even nicer would be the ability to see the *range* of tempos within a passage, and short of doing that measure-by-measure, I don't see any worthwhile way to do that via manual methods. That's why a tool that calculates the BPM from a waveform selection would be so useful. > And I wasn't suggesting that you invest > in Pro Tools to achieve what you're looking for only to point out > that you are not the first person that needs to determine this type > of information. That, too, was not clear from what you wrote. You said this: > > Don't know Audacity well enough but Pro Tools can do what > > you're looking for. That seems to me like a recommendation of a piece of software that can do what I want, not so much as an indication that other people need this, too (though it *is* that implicitly). Had you said: > > You're actually not the only one who needs this, since Pro > > Tools can already do what you're looking for. And, of course, it would remain to be seen whether or not ProTools could actually detect BPM accurately enough from classical music textures to be useful for what I'm investigating. > Apparently, you think it should be free or you'll > complain about it. ??? I asked for an Audacity plugin. That pretty much implies I'm looking for something free or inexpensive, don't you think? I'm certainly not looking to acquire a completely different application that does way more than the simple task I'm asking about. Indeed, I didn't ask for free or pay, I asked for a plugin. Now, a $25 plugin might be worth it, while a $250 piece of software that I don't really need seems like overkill to me. In the end, I think your message was pretty elliptical in regard to what you say you were intending to convey. I don't know how I possibly could have interpreted it the way you had in mind -- all I had to go on was your words, and they didn't explicitly convey major parts of what you say you intended. In short, you brought a context in your head that was not the same as the context in the words of the discussion that came before your post. I'm sorry I misinterpreted your words, but taken by themselves, they really did seem to me to be pretty non-responsive to what I'd asked about. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
