On Thursday 12 December 2002 9:33 pm, David Olofson wrote:
> On Thursday 12 December 2002 21.25, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> > Basically what I'm saying is that the note_pitch idea goes some way
> > towards making scales work, but not all the way,
>
> The issues you have described are based on the ass
On Thursday 12 December 2002 22.53, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 08:16:07PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > > > Yes it does, since you need to deal *only* with the note
> > > > number. The scale converter then generates the correct pitch
> > > > for the notes in the scale that you
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 08:16:07PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > > Yes it does, since you need to deal *only* with the note number.
> > > The scale converter then generates the correct pitch for the
> > > notes in the scale that you reference. That's the whole point
> > > with using note_pitch an
On Thursday 12 December 2002 21.25, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
[...]
> > In some cases, yes - but remember that the arpeggiator is not the
> > *only* plugin in the system. If you play other synths as well,
> > you'll probably want the arpeggiator to respect the scales used
> > for those, rather than tr
On Thursday 12 December 2002 17.13, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 03:10:07PM +, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> > The only real disadvantage to this scheme is that some
> > note-processing algorithms probably don't work in relative pitch.
> > For example, if for some reason you wanted
On Thursday 12 December 2002 16.10, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> On Thursday 12 December 2002 12:18 pm, David Olofson wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 December 2002 12.43, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> > > In
> > > fact, linear_pitch is probably better for this kind of
> > > arpeggiator because you can create octa
On Thursday 12 December 2002 7:16 pm, David Olofson wrote:
> On Thursday 12 December 2002 15.26, Steve Harris wrote:
> > I guess it
> > depends what key you're in... which can't be expressed in a note
> > number anyway, so I still think its redundant.
>
> Well, then we're into this "tweaking notes
On Thursday 12 December 2002 15.26, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:46:29PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > > and arpegiate for non ET scales is a hard
> > > problem anyway, providing note numbers doesn't help.
> >
> > Yes it does, since you need to deal *only* with the note number
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 03:10:07PM +, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> The only real disadvantage to this scheme is that some note-processing
> algorithms probably don't work in relative pitch. For example, if for some
> reason you wanted to map all 12 tones of a normal scale onto just the white
>
On Thursday 12 December 2002 12:18 pm, David Olofson wrote:
> On Thursday 12 December 2002 12.43, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> > In
> > fact, linear_pitch is probably better for this kind of arpeggiator
> > because you can create octaves, which you can't do in general in
> > note_pitch.
>
> Well, consi
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:46:29PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > and arpegiate for non ET scales is a hard
> > problem anyway, providing note numbers doesn't help.
>
> Yes it does, since you need to deal *only* with the note number. The
> scale converter then generates the correct pitch for the
On Thursday 12 December 2002 13.26, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 09:31:52 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > > A synth could still have a built in event
> > > processor, but it should only process linear_pitch events.
> >
> > Yes - but you could not implement a useful arpeggiator that
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 09:31:52 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > A synth could still have a built in event
> > processor, but it should only process linear_pitch events.
>
> Yes - but you could not implement a useful arpeggiator that way, for
> example. It would do the wrong thing as soon as you'
On Thursday 12 December 2002 12.43, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 December 2002 8:31 pm, David Olofson wrote:
> > > A synth could still have a built in event
> > > processor, but it should only process linear_pitch events.
> >
> > Yes - but you could not implement a useful arpeggiator th
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 8:31 pm, David Olofson wrote:
> > A synth could still have a built in event
> > processor, but it should only process linear_pitch events.
>
> Yes - but you could not implement a useful arpeggiator that way, for
> example. It would do the wrong thing as soon as you're
On Thursday 12 December 2002 03.10, David Gerard Matthews wrote:
> David Olofson wrote:
> >That's not rude - I don't think anyone is *totally* sure about
> > this...
> >
> >Though, you might want to note (pun not intended) that I'm really
> >talking about "continous pitch" - not note numbers, as in
David Olofson wrote:
That's not rude - I don't think anyone is *totally* sure about this...
Though, you might want to note (pun not intended) that I'm really
talking about "continous pitch" - not note numbers, as in "integer,
MIDI style". You could think of the relation as
linear_pitch = f(n
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 23.56, David Gerard Matthews wrote:
[...]
> >The need for 1.0/note or similar arrise when you want to work with
> >something like 12t without deciding on the exact tuning, and also
> >when you want to write "simple" event processor plugins that think
> > it terms of no
David Olofson wrote:
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 13.59, David Gerard Matthews wrote:
Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:40:18 +, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
I can't really say I can think of a better way though.
Personally I'd leave scales out of the API and let the host deal
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 21.50, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 06:49:17 +, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> > Sorry, I just tend to hit "reply to all" because some lists seem
> > to be set up so that "reply" doesn't go to the list.
>
> See if your mail client has a reply-to-list dea
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 06:49:17 +, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> Sorry, I just tend to hit "reply to all" because some lists seem to be set up
> so that "reply" doesn't go to the list.
See if your mail client has a reply-to-list deature, mutt does
(+L).
> > I like the idea of enforced "explicit
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 19.49, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 December 2002 5:19 pm, David Olofson wrote:
> > (Oops. Replied to the direct reply, rather than via the list.
> > Please, don't CC me - I'm on the list! :-)
>
> Sorry, I just tend to hit "reply to all" because some lists
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 18.26, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 04:35:16 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > > Maybe. My objection to converters is more that they imply two
> > > parallel representations of frequency (in the broad sense of
> > > the word), which seems like a mistake.
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 5:19 pm, David Olofson wrote:
> (Oops. Replied to the direct reply, rather than via the list. Please,
> don't CC me - I'm on the list! :-)
Sorry, I just tend to hit "reply to all" because some lists seem to be set up
so that "reply" doesn't go to the list.
> I like
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 04:35:16 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > Maybe. My objection to converters is more that they imply two
> > parallel representations of frequency (in the broad sense of the
> > word), which seems like a mistake.
>
> They are not parallel. One actually *is* frequency, while t
(Oops. Replied to the direct reply, rather than via the list. Please,
don't CC me - I'm on the list! :-)
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] XAP: Pitch control
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:05:57 +0100
From: David Olofson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
(Same thing again...)
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] XAP: Pitch control
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:15:59 +0100
From: David Olofson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Nathaniel Virgo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 18.09, Nathaniel
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 4:29 pm, David Olofson wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 December 2002 13.59, David Gerard Matthews wrote:
> > Steve Harris wrote:
> > >On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:40:18 +, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> > >>I can't really say I can think of a better way though.
> > >> Personally
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 17.17, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 04:25:56 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > > (1/12)/note makes more sense because theres /is/ someting very
> > > 12ey about 12tET notes (the clues in the name ;), whereas there
> > > is nothing 12ey about octaves. At
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 3:41 pm, David Olofson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:40:18 +, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> > I can't really say I can think of a better way though.
> > Personally I'd leave scales out of the API and let the host deal
> > with it, sticking to 1.0/octave throughout
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 13.59, David Gerard Matthews wrote:
> Steve Harris wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:40:18 +, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> >>I can't really say I can think of a better way though.
> >> Personally I'd leave scales out of the API and let the host deal
> >> with it, s
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 04:25:56 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > (1/12)/note makes more sense because theres /is/ someting very 12ey
> > about 12tET notes (the clues in the name ;), whereas there is
> > nothing 12ey about octaves. At all.
>
> There is nothing 12ey *at all* about notes if you're in
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:40:18 +, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> I can't really say I can think of a better way though.
> Personally I'd leave scales out of the API and let the host deal
> with it, sticking to 1.0/octave throughout, but I can see the
> advantages of this as well.
Problem with let
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 12.10, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 01:39:12 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > Anyway, given that a converter plugin instance can only ever be
> > called once per buffer, and could potentially handle multiple
> > channels, I'm sure it will be quite a bit
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 12.06, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 01:26:01 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > You're missing that I'm not talking about 1.0/octave, linear
> > pitch, but /note, *note* pitch. That means
> > /note should *always* apply, and that
> > should be constant.
Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:40:18 +, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
I can't really say I can think of a better way though. Personally I'd leave
scales out of the API and let the host deal with it, sticking to 1.0/octave
throughout, but I can see the advantages of this as well.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:40:18 +, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> I can't really say I can think of a better way though. Personally I'd leave
> scales out of the API and let the host deal with it, sticking to 1.0/octave
> throughout, but I can see the advantages of this as well.
We could put it
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 01:39:12 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> Anyway, given that a converter plugin instance can only ever be
> called once per buffer, and could potentially handle multiple
> channels, I'm sure it will be quite a bit faster than host callbacks
> when it actually matters: when y
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 01:26:01 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> You're missing that I'm not talking about 1.0/octave, linear pitch,
> but /note, *note* pitch. That means /note
> should *always* apply, and that should be constant.
> Changing it is totally pointless, since you'd still have note pi
Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
[representing pitch]
i'm a classically trained musician, and i even failed to learn csound
properly, but even so it strikes me as highly arbitrary and somewhat
anachronistic to stick to the 12 semitones/octave model.
so i'd strongly second steve's suggestion to have 1
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 00.33, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 09:22:13PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > > > It *does* hurt the 12tET case, at least unless you're
> > > > suggesting that sequencers should always store 1.0/octave...?
> > >
> > > I thought sequencers were going t
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 8:39 pm, David Olofson wrote:
> > > More ideas, anyone?
> >
> > 4. Raw frequency in Hz.
>
> How would that make anything easier?
I'm not saying it necessarily would, I was just suggesting an alternative
that hadn't been mentioned at the time I started typing.
> >
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 00.29, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 09:10:01PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > What I'm trying to say is that (1/12)/note certainly doesn't look
> > nice in note oriented code, considering that there's *not*
> > nescessarilly 12 notes per octave:
>
> N
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 09:22:13PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > > It *does* hurt the 12tET case, at least unless you're suggesting
> > > that sequencers should always store 1.0/octave...?
> >
> > I thought sequencers were going to send note numbers?
>
> Sequencers are going to store pitch in th
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 09:10:01PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> What I'm trying to say is that (1/12)/note certainly doesn't look
> nice in note oriented code, considering that there's *not*
> nescessarilly 12 notes per octave:
No, but if theres not 12 notes per octave then you dont need a twel
[representing pitch]
i'm a classically trained musician, and i even failed to learn csound
properly, but even so it strikes me as highly arbitrary and somewhat
anachronistic to stick to the 12 semitones/octave model.
so i'd strongly second steve's suggestion to have 1.0f per octave and
nothing el
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 14.48, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
> On Monday 09 December 2002 11:40 pm, David Olofson wrote:
> > I would be happy to see a clean solution for this, but so far,
> > these are the only alternatives we have managed come up with:
> >
> > 1. 1.0/note for note_pitch, 1.0/octa
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 13.15, Steve Harris wrote:
[...]
> > > If you just represent pitch, then I can create a virtual
> > > instrument (connected to a physical one if neccesary) that can
> > > create the right pitches for the scale (or be analogue).
> >
> > I *am* suggesting to represent pitc
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 13.00, Steve Harris wrote:
[...pseudocode and stuff...]
> I know which I prefer. There are other solutions to the sclaing
> problem, but AFAICT they all involve actualy using 1.0/octave
> really and just scaling it up and down every time you want to use
> it. Pointless.
On Monday 09 December 2002 11:40 pm, David Olofson wrote:
> I would be happy to see a clean solution for this, but so far, these
> are the only alternatives we have managed come up with:
>
> 1. 1.0/note for note_pitch, 1.0/octave for linear_pitch.
> Converter plugins required everyw
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:13:26 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> Then you're missing the point. My 12.0/octave linear_pitch is
> *exactly* the same thing as your 1.0 - except that it's 12.0 instead
> of 1.0. (See previous post.)
Yeah, and thats why its bad.
> > They will as long as you dont try
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 03:56:32 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > > linear_pitch = note_pitch * (12.0 / 16.0);
> > >
> > > That is, "stretch" the scale so you need 16.0 note_pitch units to
> > > span one octave. Now, all of a sudden, your synths - apparently
> > > written for 12tET - can play 16tE
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 01.31, Steve Harris wrote:
[...]
> > With 1.0/note for note_pitch, and 12.0/octave for linear_pitch,
> > we have a nice and extremely simple "shortcut" available for all
> > those that use only or mostly 12tET:
>
> and a headache if you dont want to work in 12tET. Its no
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:40:10 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> If "actual pitch"; hint your pitch inputs as "linear_pitch". Now, you
> get 12.0/octave, period. It could have been 1.0, but then someone
> would need to convert back and forth, even in pure 12tET nets. Now,
> you can effectively hav
David Olofson wrote:
AFAIK, there are even musicians that don't have much use of current
standard synths and applications, simply because they're too
restrictive, and/or way too cumbersome to deal with, when it comes to
scales and pitch control.
Like me?
-dgm
On Monday 09 December 2002 23.25, Steve Harris wrote:
[...]
> Right, but you do have to pay a price if you're not in 12tET, if
> you use 1.0 then theres never any price.
Then you're missing the point. My 12.0/octave linear_pitch is
*exactly* the same thing as your 1.0 - except that it's 12.0 inst
On Monday 09 December 2002 23.05, Steve Harris wrote:
[...]
> > * Getting what you actually *need* for the synth. Is
> > this something that can be narrowed down to one or
> > two formats (frequency and period?), or is it perhaps
> > better left to plugins to perform the linea
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 09:37:20 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> What I'm saying is simply that if *everything* in a standard, 12tET
> net uses 12.0/octave, it doesn't matter whether you say you're taking
> or sending note_pitch or linear_pitch - because they look exactly the
> same. That way, *no
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 09:04:17 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> There is potentially a "current" scale for each *Channel* of an event
> generator/processor. (I'm not even sure it's that simple...)
Ok, fine, that doesn't change anything.
> * Getting what you actually *need* for the synth. Is
On Monday 09 December 2002 18.44, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 05:37:53PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > On Monday 09 December 2002 17.05, Steve Harris wrote:
> > > I really dont like the idea of having two forms of pitch data,
> > > and I dont like the idea of implicity putting p
On Monday 09 December 2002 18.35, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 05:20:26PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > > Just to make it clear, I would have the host provide a
> > > pitch->note number and note number->pitch mapping functions
> > > (for the "current scale").
> >
> > 1. There
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 05:37:53PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> On Monday 09 December 2002 17.05, Steve Harris wrote:
> > I really dont like the idea of having two forms of pitch data, and
> > I dont like the idea of implicity putting pitch converters in the
> > graph.
>
> Well, it can be done wi
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 05:20:26PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > Just to make it clear, I would have the host provide a pitch->note
> > number and note number->pitch mapping functions (for the "current
> > scale").
>
> 1. There is no "current scale". You may have different
> scale
On Monday 09 December 2002 17.05, Steve Harris wrote:
> I really dont like the idea of having two forms of pitch data, and
> I dont like the idea of implicity putting pitch converters in the
> graph.
Well, it can be done with one form only, that will only make life
harder on those who don't want
On Monday 09 December 2002 16.30, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:59:10PM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> > I dont see how a plugin can usfully process and note information
> > without any explicit knowledge of the scale (execpt for some
> > trivial cases, eg. octave shift, 5ths), but
I really dont like the idea of having two forms of pitch data, and I dont
like the idea of implicity putting pitch converters in the graph.
Its messy and unnessary.
The overhead from making the small number of processors that require it
get the host to do the conversions is probably no higher tha
On Monday 09 December 2002 15.59, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:48:10PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > > For an apregiate in 12 tne you just add 1/12 per semitone, not
> > > 1.0, I dont think thats hard.
> >
> > Well, yes - but did you get the actual point; that linear pitch
> >
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:59:10PM +, Steve Harris wrote:
> I dont see how a plugin can usfully process and note information without
> any explicit knowledge of the scale (execpt for some trivial cases, eg.
> octave shift, 5ths), but those can be handled in linear pitch too.
Just to make it cl
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:48:10PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > For an apregiate in 12 tne you just add 1/12 per semitone, not 1.0,
> > I dont think thats hard.
>
> Well, yes - but did you get the actual point; that linear pitch may
> not be all that useful to plugins that don't care about the
On Monday 09 December 2002 14.42, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:45:22PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > Hmm... As to having a synth support *both* note_pitch and
> > linear_pitch controls, I suppose that would effectively just be a
> > dual interface to a single internal control
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:45:22PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> Hmm... As to having a synth support *both* note_pitch and
> linear_pitch controls, I suppose that would effectively just be a
> dual interface to a single internal control value. Send something to
> linear_pitch, and it goes direct
I was in this long thread about pitch control on the VST list, and I
think I learned a few things. (For a change! ;-D)
There are times when continous, linear pitch (what I have in
Audiality) is perfectly fine - and in those cases, it's by far, the
simplest possibly way you can control pitch of
72 matches
Mail list logo
