If you think about a midi controller, stretch and scroll make sense: when changing the pitch, adjust the stretch. When adjusting sync with jogwheels, adjust scroll speed. With stretching, this means the beats line up along the entire length of the waveform, so you can see the two tracks really line up. Without stretching, only the beats in the center would line up. At the edges, the beats would appear to be out of sync.
Right now the bpm display is tied to the waveform stretching. So if I'm going to change the bpm text widget, the waveform is going to stretch. Maybe we should add an option to just disable waveform stretching altogether? I know adding configurable options is lame, but this might be a case where two groups of people rightfully disagree. Owen On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 18:46 +0100, Owen Bullock wrote: > Right, because the waveform stretches to match the current pitch, while the > scroll speed remains constant. I think 'other' software i've used adjusts > the scroll speed, while keeping the waveform constant - which kinda > addresses the visual sync issue. (Thats probably the first time i've > realised that the choice of 'stretch' or 'speed' on the waveform makes a > practical difference) > > Any idea why Mixxx has gone for the 'stretch' solution? I'm guessing it > ties directly to the way the samples are being manipulated in memory? > > rgds > Owen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Owen Williams" <owen-b...@ywwg.com> > To: "Owen Bullock" <owen_bull...@yahoo.co.uk> > Cc: <mixxx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 4:54 AM > Subject: Re: [Mixxx-devel] resumed work on new vinyl control > > > > On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 13:29 +0100, Owen Bullock wrote: > >> One other thing i'm finding > >> odd, but maybe i need to get used to it, is that when i touch the deck to > >> slow it down a bit, the whole waveform display 'rubberbands' (for want of > >> a > >> better word) - whereas before it would simply slow down a touch, making > >> it > >> easy to line up the beats visually. Maybe this behaviour could be > >> toggleable? > > > > > > So I played around with the code today, and I'm realizing there's a > > fundamental problem with vinyl that makes the waveform display > > impossible to perfect: it's not possible to tell the difference between > > touching the vinyl to adjust sync (should not stretch waveform) and > > adjusting the pitch control to change speed (should stretch waveform). > > I can't come up with an algorithm that is subtle enough to stretch the > > waveform when the dj adjusts the pitch control, but sensitive enough > > that it keeps the waveform the same size when the dj is adjusting sync. > > > > I welcome anyone else to try to come up with a good algorithm, but I > > don't think it's possible. > > > > So, in light of that conclusion, I'm just going to keep the > > "rubber-banding" effect the way it is. It think it's more important to > > have the bpm be reported often and accurately and have the waveform > > change size based on the pitch control. > > > > Owen > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: Show off your parallel programming skills. Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd _______________________________________________ Mixxx-devel mailing list Mixxx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mixxx-devel
