> From: metachromatic <metachroma...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Rational
>
> ===========
>
> \version "2.18.2"
>
> \score {
>
> <<
>
> \new Staff {
> \clef "treble"
> \override TupletNumber.text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
> \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f
> \omit Score.BarLine
> \relative c''
> {
> \tuplet 53/37{r4}
> \tuplet 43/29{c8}
> r8
> \tuplet 3/2{d8}
> \tuplet 19/13 {e8[ d8 c8]}
> \tuplet 11/7{b4.}
> \tuplet 17/13{g8}
> r8
> \tuplet 61/47{r4}
> %\tuplet 31/23{a8}
> %\tuplet 89/79 {b4}
> %\tuplet 97/41{r4}
>
> }
>
> }
> >>
>
> }
>
> So let's ask ourselves, as a practical matter, what kind of
> accuracy does Lilypond _really_ need internally?
>
> So what we'd like is for no note in a Lilypond score to be off by
> more than 1/31,250 of a second in (oh, let's say) 100 page of score.
> That means we need a timing accuracy of 1/100*(1/31250) second =
> 1/(3.125) microseconds. That works out to an accuracy of (ballpark) 3
> parts in 10 million.
>
If you think you (or any human) can audibly distinguish among these
durations, you are even more delusional than you are lacking in social
graces.
>From a CS perspective, this might be an interesting theoretical problem.
But it lies entirely outside the realm of music.
Sincerely,
David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
