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 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 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
(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: Nathaniel Virgo <
(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 Virgo wrote:
> On
21 matches
Mail list logo
