On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:26:54 +0200
Tim Orford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now there's Apps B and C. B should be in sync with A's first track and C
> > should be in sync with A's second track.
> >
> > Don't know if this is really overkill though. I would find it useful..
>
> i wouldnt use it p
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 09:28:53PM +0200, Florian Schmidt wrote:
> App A is a sequencer having two tracks at two different meters (i'm
> thinking polyrythmic here, so the meters/tempi might be related (just to
> make a point about the usefulness of this)).
>
> Now there's Apps B and C. B should be
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:49:36 +0200
Tim Orford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The reason for this opinion of mine is that musical time is simply too
> > complex to be handled by one general mechanism. Think of different apps
> > using different meters, etc.. Or even a single app using different
> >
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Florian Schmidt wrote:
> > you can't do tempo-map based transport without sharing the tempo map.
> > nobody has suggested a way to do this yet. please feel free.
>
> Here i would like to chime in :) I think the mapping of BBT to frames
> and the other way
