Re: [Finale] Panning values

[A-NO-NE Music]

Darcy James Argue / 2005/09/09 / 06:23 PM wrote:

>Percentages are the *standard* way to do it. All major digital audio  
>applications use percentages.  Moreover, the Kontakt Player users  
>percentages for pan, which means Finale is not even internally  
>consistent.

I don't understand this thread at all.  What are you guys talking about?!

Finale sends pan value as MIDI data because that's the only way exists.
Kontakt is receiving pan data as MIDI data, because that's the only data
type Kontakt knows.

It is wrong that Kontakt let you have more than 128 steps of resolution
to start with.  Kontakt is telling you that you can receive more than
128 steps of resolution which is a lie.  There is no way around of this
until some other standard that replaces MIDI with higher resolution.

The correct way is that Kontakt shows more than 128 steps of resolution
only when you disable CC receiver.

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Simon Troup]

>> That's incorrect. Logic, for example, uses -64 through +64.
>
>I don't get all this talk of -64 to 64. If there are only 128 values,
>doesn't one of the bounds have to have an absolute value of 63? -64 to
>64, with zero included as center, is 129 values. I've always seen it
>as -63 to 64.

Just double checked and you're correct Brad, Logic is -64 through +63.
It seems my idea of an extra placebo value isn't going to send
shockwaves through the industry after all.

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Simon Troup]

>I don't get all this talk of -64 to 64. If there are only 128 values,
>doesn't one of the bounds have to have an absolute value of 63? -64 to
>64, with zero included as center, is 129 values. I've always seen it
>as -63 to 64.

I think one of the numbers, such as hard left (-64) is a placebo :)

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Brad Beyenhof]

On 9/10/05, Simon Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Percentages are the *standard* way to do it. All major digital audio
>> applications use percentages.
> 
> That's incorrect. Logic, for example, uses -64 through +64.

I don't get all this talk of -64 to 64. If there are only 128 values,
doesn't one of the bounds have to have an absolute value of 63? -64 to
64, with zero included as center, is 129 values. I've always seen it
as -63 to 64.

-- 
Brad Beyenhof
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com
Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also
deprive me of the possibility of being right.   ~ Igor Stravinsky

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Simon Troup]

>Percentages are the *standard* way to do it. All major digital audio  
>applications use percentages.

That's incorrect. Logic, for example, uses -64 through +64.

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Simon Troup]

>Thank you Simon,
>
>That's Option-shift-8 on a Mac, and it works to the nth°
>
>Chuck

Ah yes, I always call them alt and apple - I think you're being a bit
elitist Chuck :)

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Ken Moore]

Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote

> Percentages are the *standard* way to do it. All major digital audio
> applications use percentages.  Moreover, the Kontakt Player users
> percentages for pan, which means Finale is not even internally
> consistent.


>> The sequencer I use (a shitty one that came with my sound card) use
>> MIDI numbers centered on 64 as the center, so it runs from -64 to
>> +64.


> That would be a little better, but base 100 is still easier and more
> intuitive than base 64.

What's wrong with base 64?  It converts much more easily than base 100 
into binary, which is obviously the best way to count.  How else can you 
count up to 31 on one hand (useful if the other one is holding a bow)?


> You are the only person I have *ever* heard express *any* puzzlement
> about what "50% right" or "75% left" means. This is the standard way
> of referring to panning locations, both on a physical mixing board
> and in professional digital audio applications.

Chacun à son goût.

--
Ken Moore
Musician and engineer

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Christopher Smith]

On Sep 9, 2005, at 9:13 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


Well, the problem is that you've got 180 degrees and 128 MIDI values,
so degrees would be more precise than any MIDI value you could
produce. Percentages have the same problem, when you use 100% for
right and 100% for left, since you end up with 200 degrees of
freedom, where the actual MIDI data has only 128.



Yet if the idea is to represent an analogue mixing console, the pan pot 
has about 330 degrees of revolution available, which is an equally bad 
representation of what the pan actually does.


And things get even more complicated with surround sound, where you 
actually DO have 360 degrees of pan available!


The rest of your comments stand unchallenged (by me, anyway) as 
anything we come up with to represent pan is going to need some 
understanding of what it does.


Christopher


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Chuck Israels]

On Sep 9, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Simon Troup wrote:


(By now, you have all figured out that I don't know how to get the
symbol for degrees on my keyboard.)



Try alt-shift-8 although I'm not sure how it will look cross platform!

90° 180°

We use the degree symbol for 1° and 2° (first time and 2nd time only).



Thank you Simon,

That's Option-shift-8 on a Mac, and it works to the nth°

Chuck





--
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale



Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 03:43 AM 9/10/05 +0100, Simon Troup wrote:
>Try alt-shift-8 although I'm not sure how it will look cross platform!
>90° 180°

Looks great, to a degree. :) ALT+0176 on Windows. 176°

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Simon Troup]

>(By now, you have all figured out that I don't know how to get the  
>symbol for degrees on my keyboard.)

Try alt-shift-8 although I'm not sure how it will look cross platform!

90° 180°

We use the degree symbol for 1° and 2° (first time and 2nd time only).

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Ken Durling]

"Well, MINE goes to 11!"

Your explanation reminds me how rich a joke that was


Ken

At 07:07 PM 9/9/2005, you wrote:

At 09:13 PM 9/9/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>Well, the problem is that you've got 180 degrees and 128 MIDI values,

Now I see what you're getting at.

Let me take you through why my preference is that scaling be abstracted and
generalized.

In most cases, percentage works for me because I'm a child of knobs. I
built my first synth modules in 1970, and bought my first synth in the
way-pre-Midi dark ages of 1973. Knobs did not (and still do not) all have
the same travel. The "o'clock" method doesn't work if your knob's travel
can't reach 7:00 or 5:00 ... plus knobs with "off" positions didn't
actually start controlling until 8:30. Kinda like my mornings. :)  And
then, many knobs are sliders, and sliders vary in length even more than
knobs vary in travel. None are replicable.

So controls with a zero point at the start were 0%-100%. Controls with a
center zero point ran -100% to +100%. Filters had a variable Q point
depending on temperature. For me, it was always a percentage relative to
the turn of the knob or reach of the slider.

Another example of abstraction is the volume control, which is logrithmic
in output, but "looks" linear (in physical knobs and in Midi). And that
doesn't include so-called loudness taps, or even off-the-shelf multi-band
(hardware or software) equalizers, which work in unequal divisions
approximately related to logrithmic ones. Your VU meter in the physical
world and in software displays in dB. It's all what "feels" right to the
eye and the hand, and that does not necessarily map to the actual voltages
or bits being employed. Even resistor and capacitor values are approximate
to the voltage equations -- that's why they're sold in the apparently
strange multiples of 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2.2, 2.7, 3.3, 3.9, 4.7, 5.6, 6.8,
7.5, 8.2, and 9.1

For those who actually design software synths, there are lots of ways of
treating the values for pitch, volume, positioning, etc. Download a copy of
SynthEdit and notice that all the work is done in *virtual voltages*, with
Midi information translated in and out of a 'container' before it hits the
interior modules!

Now back to Midi panning. 16-bit values can be used for many parameters.
Whereas panning within Finale might still be set to only 128 discrete
values, in other software an assigned controller may replace the older pan
controller, using a more refined scale of 32,768 values. Such higher
resolution is very important if you're mixing the music to a 3D space.

I'm suggesting that locking an abstract behavior to a fixed numerical
identification may be appropriate for certain ways of working. And, of
course, it's only software -- so the choice of scale should be configurable
to the user's preference. There will be times when the Midi value is going
to be critical, and I'd want to know it. But usually not.

It seems to me that percentages abstract position of knobs and sliders
pretty conveniently, because most actual values don't have importance --
only their relative position does. Isn't the reason for abstracting the
numerical values to knobs and sliders in the first place meant to exploit
the convenience of the physical position, however you prefer to name it?

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale


Ken Durling
Composition and Music Services
Berkeley, CA
[510] 843-4419

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 09:13 PM 9/9/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>Well, the problem is that you've got 180 degrees and 128 MIDI values, 

Now I see what you're getting at.

Let me take you through why my preference is that scaling be abstracted and
generalized.

In most cases, percentage works for me because I'm a child of knobs. I
built my first synth modules in 1970, and bought my first synth in the
way-pre-Midi dark ages of 1973. Knobs did not (and still do not) all have
the same travel. The "o'clock" method doesn't work if your knob's travel
can't reach 7:00 or 5:00 ... plus knobs with "off" positions didn't
actually start controlling until 8:30. Kinda like my mornings. :)  And
then, many knobs are sliders, and sliders vary in length even more than
knobs vary in travel. None are replicable.

So controls with a zero point at the start were 0%-100%. Controls with a
center zero point ran -100% to +100%. Filters had a variable Q point
depending on temperature. For me, it was always a percentage relative to
the turn of the knob or reach of the slider.

Another example of abstraction is the volume control, which is logrithmic
in output, but "looks" linear (in physical knobs and in Midi). And that
doesn't include so-called loudness taps, or even off-the-shelf multi-band
(hardware or software) equalizers, which work in unequal divisions
approximately related to logrithmic ones. Your VU meter in the physical
world and in software displays in dB. It's all what "feels" right to the
eye and the hand, and that does not necessarily map to the actual voltages
or bits being employed. Even resistor and capacitor values are approximate
to the voltage equations -- that's why they're sold in the apparently
strange multiples of 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2.2, 2.7, 3.3, 3.9, 4.7, 5.6, 6.8,
7.5, 8.2, and 9.1

For those who actually design software synths, there are lots of ways of
treating the values for pitch, volume, positioning, etc. Download a copy of
SynthEdit and notice that all the work is done in *virtual voltages*, with
Midi information translated in and out of a 'container' before it hits the
interior modules!

Now back to Midi panning. 16-bit values can be used for many parameters.
Whereas panning within Finale might still be set to only 128 discrete
values, in other software an assigned controller may replace the older pan
controller, using a more refined scale of 32,768 values. Such higher
resolution is very important if you're mixing the music to a 3D space.

I'm suggesting that locking an abstract behavior to a fixed numerical
identification may be appropriate for certain ways of working. And, of
course, it's only software -- so the choice of scale should be configurable
to the user's preference. There will be times when the Midi value is going
to be critical, and I'd want to know it. But usually not.

It seems to me that percentages abstract position of knobs and sliders
pretty conveniently, because most actual values don't have importance --
only their relative position does. Isn't the reason for abstracting the
numerical values to knobs and sliders in the first place meant to exploit
the convenience of the physical position, however you prefer to name it?

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Sep 2005 at 17:19, Chuck Israels wrote:

> Degrees?  90 degrees left?  60 degrees right?  0 degrees = center.  
> (By now, you have all figured out that I don't know how to get the 
> symbol for degrees on my keyboard.) W - N - E?

Well, the problem is that you've got 180 degrees and 128 MIDI values, 
so degrees would be more precise than any MIDI value you could 
produce. Percentages have the same problem, when you use 100% for 
right and 100% for left, since you end up with 200 degrees of 
freedom, where the actual MIDI data has only 128.

False precision is one of the problems with percentages, and degrees 
has some of the same problem.

But, it is really no different than using -32 to represent halfway 
between left and center.

> That would make some sense to me, but it's not so difficult for me to 
> learn another set of numbers that represent those positions, so I'm 
> much less concerned with this issue than I am with other, more 
> functionally troublesome aspects of Finale.

I don't see that using the actual MIDI values is hard, so I can't 
quite understand why there's a need to change it in the first place.

> After all, I learned what those crazy EVPU numbers meant, just by 
> using them.  (If I remember correctly, in early versions of Finale, 
> they were the only units of measurement available.)  I'm so used to 
> them now, that an attempt to change to the"more intuitive" spaces 
> caused more trouble than it was worth.

EVPUs have exactly the same kinds of problems as using a percentage 
for pan. 

Take the tempo tool. or the dialog you use for controlling where in a 
measure a performance-defined measure expression has its effect. You 
start with beat 1, and beat 1.5 is the 2nd 8th note of the measure. 
Again, you end up with a representation that doesn't make any sense 
in musical results.

It's because you're trying to work with continuous data as though it 
is discreet.

EVPUs in a measure at least has the virtue of starting from zero, as 
time does.

Consider: what if you used percentages of a measure to determine 
where something occurred. That would be wrong, and for exactly the 
same reasons that precentages are conceptually wrong to pan, however 
common such a construction may be in certain computer programs (that 
I don't use).

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Chuck Israels]

Degrees?  90 degrees left?  60 degrees right?  0 degrees = center.   
(By now, you have all figured out that I don't know how to get the  
symbol for degrees on my keyboard.) W - N - E?


That would make some sense to me, but it's not so difficult for me to  
learn another set of numbers that represent those positions, so I'm  
much less concerned with this issue than I am with other, more  
functionally troublesome aspects of Finale.


After all, I learned what those crazy EVPU numbers meant, just by  
using them.  (If I remember correctly, in early versions of Finale,  
they were the only units of measurement available.)  I'm so used to  
them now, that an attempt to change to the"more intuitive" spaces  
caused more trouble than it was worth.


Chuck

Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Sep 2005 at 18:23, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 09 Sep 2005, at 5:42 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > No, percentages are *not* the right way to do it.
> 
> Percentages are the *standard* way to do it. . . .

Well, we are talking past each other.

I said it's WRONG, you said it's STANDARD.

Standards can be wrong, and, in fact, to me many of the UI 
conventions of sequencers are incredibly ill-conceived and 
implemented.

> . . .All major digital audio 
> applications use percentages. . . .

Well, I don't use even one of those, so THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT 
TO ME AS A FINALE USER.

> . . . Moreover, the Kontakt Player users 
> percentages for pan, which means Finale is not even internally 
> consistent.

I DON'T CARE.

I use Finale, not these "major digital audio" programs. User 
conventions derived from those are not going to be "conventional" to 
someone who has never used them.

As Finale is *not* a sequencer, I see no reason that MakeMusic should 
use sequencers as its only model, even when implementing sequencing 
functionality. They should choose the UI that makes the most sense 
within the context of a music notation program, even if it's not the 
same as that found in pure sequencers.

> > The sequencer I use (a shitty one that came with my sound card) use
> > MIDI numbers centered on 64 as the center, so it runs from -64 to
> > +64.
> 
> That would be a little better, but base 100 is still easier and more 
> intuitive than base 64.

Here's as fre clue:

IT'S NOT INTUITIVE OR EASIER FOR ME.

I *despise* the word intuitive, because it's never used to mean a UI 
that is discoverable, but is almost always applied to UI that behaves 
the same way as other UIs that any particular user is accustomed to.

It's intuitive to you because it's like other programs, not because 
it has any necessary logic to it. Indeed, the logic is EXTREMELY 
POOR, as it maps onto percentages something that has no relation to 
parts of a whole.

> > Well, don't blame that on Finale -- blame it on the people who
> > designed the MIDI spec, since that's the way it works.
> 
> There is no reason to force the user to use the raw MIDI numbers. 
> Finale can easily convert a percentage to a MIDI controller number.  
> (This is what the Kontakt Player does.)

Percentages are completely illogical, no matter how familiar they may 
be to you or anyone else who has applications that map pan onto 
percentages.

> > Percentages are massively worse, as the percentage would be a signed
> > percentage of, er, um, what? Rightness? 25% right? -33% right? It's
> > transparently nonsensical.
> 
> You are the only person I have *ever* heard express *any* puzzlement 
> about what "50% right" or "75% left" means. This is the standard way 
> of referring to panning locations, both on a physical mixing board 
> and in professional digital audio applications.

Well, here's a free clue:

I first thought you meant that 64 would be 50%, 128 would be 100%, 1 
would be 1%. That would be perecntage of "rightness" and is 
completely nonsensical.

Another alternative would be to center it on zero, then 32 would be -
50%, 96 would +50%.

Yet another would be to have unsigned percentages of right or left, 
where 0 would be the center. Then you'd have 50% right for 96 and 50% 
left for 32.

Yet another interpretation of that is that 50% right would be 64.

My whole point here is that there is no necessary logical reason for 
choosing one or the other. It's only because a group of programs that 
*you* know all seem to share one of these interprations, and to me, 
they are all wrong, because a percentage means that you are 
representing a part of a whole, and THERE IS NO WHOLE here.

That's why pure numbers (or signed numbers with 0 as the center) make 
much more sense, because they don't refer to some unstated ratio that 
is counterintuitive to the placement of sound in space.

My bet is that there are plenty of people who are Finale users who 
don't have your experience with sequencers and wouldn't necessarily 
find percentages easier than raw MIDI pan numbers (which are quite 
easy to understand, though a bit difficult to determine for a desired 
placement). That's easily handled with a calculator or in your head 
if you're good with numbers, whereas the percentages require that you 
grasp an abstraction a level higher than the one the raw numbers 
require.

It may be easy for you because you're accustomed to using that 
convention. 

But there ain't nothin' intuitive about it -- it's just that you're 
used to it.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Sep 2005 at 18:12, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:

> At 05:42 PM 9/9/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >Percentages are massively worse, as the percentage would be a signed
> >percentage of, er, um, what? Rightness? 25% right? -33% right?
> 
> Yeah. 100% left, 100% right. Sounds good to me. Better'n north by
> northwest. :)

Well, that's not what I said, as I was looking at a percentage of a 
single scale, not of a centered scale.

And it seems to me that 50% right would be in the center, but what do 
I know.

> Seriously, I only think in terms of proportional positioning, and have
> used percentages for knob settings in my electroacoustic scores long
> before there was Midi.

Well, it's absolute nonsense to my way of thinking.

As I said, the UI of many sequencers strikes me as really weird and 
counterintuitive. I don't want Finale to copy *bad* UI just because 
it's used in a lot of programs.

But, as I said, if there's an alteration to the way pan is set, I 
hope the original method of absolute MIDI numbers is left as an 
option. That way everyone can be happy. I don't care so much about 
what is chosen as the default so much as that I have a choice to 
revert to the traditional method when the new method is 
counterintuitive.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Darcy James Argue]

On 09 Sep 2005, at 5:42 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


No, percentages are *not* the right way to do it.


Percentages are the *standard* way to do it. All major digital audio  
applications use percentages.  Moreover, the Kontakt Player users  
percentages for pan, which means Finale is not even internally  
consistent.



The sequencer I use (a shitty one that came with my sound card) use
MIDI numbers centered on 64 as the center, so it runs from -64 to
+64.


That would be a little better, but base 100 is still easier and more  
intuitive than base 64.



Well, don't blame that on Finale -- blame it on the people who
designed the MIDI spec, since that's the way it works.


There is no reason to force the user to use the raw MIDI numbers.  
Finale can easily convert a percentage to a MIDI controller number.   
(This is what the Kontakt Player does.)



Percentages are massively worse, as the percentage would be a signed
percentage of, er, um, what? Rightness? 25% right? -33% right? It's
transparently nonsensical.


You are the only person I have *ever* heard express *any* puzzlement  
about what "50% right" or "75% left" means. This is the standard way  
of referring to panning locations, both on a physical mixing board  
and in professional digital audio applications.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY








___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Peter Taylor]

Darcy James Argue :

Finale, on the other hand, does not define pan in terms of derivation 
from the center.  Instead of center = 0, they use center = 64.  0 is 
actually hard right.  Now I understand why they are doing that --  it's 
how the MIDI controller data is actually sent -- but it is  *incredibly 
confusing and nonstandard* to think of pan that way.   Regardless of 
whether someone has any experience with a mixing board  or not, they will 
naturally think of panning in terms of relationship  to the center, and 
Finale's way of doing things obscures that  relationship.  Instead of 
thinking "Okay, I want Violin I panned far  left, and Violin II panned far 
right," someone instead has to think,  "Okay, I need to enter a channel 
value of 19 for Violin I and 109 for  Violin II."


That's ridiculously bad UI.


Actually, the method Finale uses for specifying pan values was embodied in 
the original MIDI 1.0 Specification as far back as 1982 and is still upheld 
today in General MIDI standards 1 & 2 by the MIDI Manufacturers Association 
(MMA).  So this is not Finale's "way of doing things", it is the correct and 
proper industry standard, which everybody who uses MIDI should be familiar 
with.


http://www.midi.org/about-midi/rp36.shtml
http://www.midi.org/about-midi/rp36public.pdf

I agree a default centre value of 0, (with -64 for hard L and +64 for hard 
R) would seem more logical, but numerical values of 42 or 108 are much more 
user-friendly to me than the 33%L or 67%R you're suggesting.  This seems 
completely ambiguous.  67% of what?


But far more importantly, does Finale 2k6 at last have a usable method of 
sending SysEx data?  If so I will upgrade tomorrow. 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 05:42 PM 9/9/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>Percentages are massively worse, as the percentage would be a signed 
>percentage of, er, um, what? Rightness? 25% right? -33% right?

Yeah. 100% left, 100% right. Sounds good to me. Better'n north by
northwest. :)

Seriously, I only think in terms of proportional positioning, and have used
percentages for knob settings in my electroacoustic scores long before
there was Midi.

Dennis



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Sep 2005 at 16:16, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 09 Sep 2005, at 3:54 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> >> And do you actually think that's a *good* idea?
> >>
> >
> > Well, he wasn't addressing whether it was good or not (it obviously
> > isn't). He was just showing that your assertion of fact was
> > COMPLETELY MISTAKEN.
> 
> Oh fercrissakes.  It was deliberate hyperbole.  Yes, FInale isn't 
> literally the only application to handle panning in such a stupid 
> way. That doesn't make it less stupid.
> 
> Since people don't seem to understand, let me start over.
> 
> With a pan pot on a mixing board, or the balance controller on your 
> stereo, or any similar device, the default position -- zero -- is the 
> *center*.  The dial usually has some kind of tactile feedback to let 
> you know that you're centered.  All values are defined in terms of 
> derivation from the center.  This is true whether you're dealing in 
> percentages (as you do in all major digital audio editors) or just 
> rough approximations like "slight left," "hard right" etc.  This is 
> just the natural way to think about placing something in a stereo
> field.

No, percentages are *not* the right way to do it.

The sequencer I use (a shitty one that came with my sound card) use 
MIDI numbers centered on 64 as the center, so it runs from -64 to 
+64.

These seems eminently sensible to me, though I have no trouble with 
the plain MIDI numbers.

> Finale, on the other hand, does not define pan in terms of derivation 
> from the center.  Instead of center = 0, they use center = 64. . . .

Well, don't blame that on Finale -- blame it on the people who 
designed the MIDI spec, since that's the way it works.

> . . .  0 is 
> actually hard right.  Now I understand why they are doing that -- 
> it's how the MIDI controller data is actually sent -- but it is 
> *incredibly confusing and nonstandard* to think of pan that way.  
> Regardless of whether someone has any experience with a mixing board 
> or not, they will naturally think of panning in terms of relationship 
> to the center, and Finale's way of doing things obscures that 
> relationship.  Instead of thinking "Okay, I want Violin I panned far 
> left, and Violin II panned far right," someone instead has to think, 
> "Okay, I need to enter a channel value of 19 for Violin I and 109 for 
> Violin II."
> 
> That's ridiculously bad UI.

Percentages are massively worse, as the percentage would be a signed 
percentage of, er, um, what? Rightness? 25% right? -33% right? It's 
transparently nonsensical.

Now, simply centering the numbers on 64 and using -64 to +64 is quite 
sensible.

If that's what you'd called for, then I don't think anybody would be 
up in arms.

It also seems to me that you've changed your tune, since now you're 
saying that mixing boards *don't* use percentages, but use some scale 
of numbers with 0 as the default centered value.

Of course, real mixing boards aren't dealing with MIDI data, so I'm 
not sure exactly how much that's relevant.

In any event, if Finale changes its implementation of how it 
represents pan values, I would hope that it would offer the 
alternative of doing it the old way.

I doubt they will change it, simply because it would mean handling 
data for one controller diffeently from the other controllers.

Are there any other controllers that ought to be centered on 64 by 
default? I cna't think of any.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Panning values

[Darcy James Argue]

On 09 Sep 2005, at 4:16 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:


0 is actually hard right.


GAH!  I meant hard left, of course.

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale