source file: mills3.txt Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:25:39 +0100 Subject: RE: MIDI/Audio Wish List From: "Loffink, John" >Patrick Ozzard-Low wrote: >Graham Breed wrote > >> My tuning priorities are: >> >> 1) At least 1/64 semitone steps >> 2) A full keyboard table >> 3) The ability to transpose that table differently for each channel >> 4) At least 0.1 cent steps >> 5) Multiple tables, easily swapped >> 6) More than one table active at a time > >Graham, do you mean 1) and 4) refer to different things? (ie., 4 >refers to 3?) Or am being very thick? >[Loffink, John] I agree. 1) and 4) seem to be at odds with one another. >Graham, on 3), do you need to transpose by octaves to get the full playable >range of more-than-12 note octaves, or do you need microtonal transpositions? > Most synths should already be capable of the former. > >General question: How essential is it to differentiate between >sampler and synth 'wish lists'? >[Loffink, John] This is not necessary at all. The limitation is the >software code inside each unit and the manufacturer's unwillingnesss to >expend the effort to implement microtuning. > >>I guess I'm confused whether you want more "Partials" to accomplish >>microtonal scales or better sampling. > >I want 1) more partials and 2) a way of dealing with them so that a >patch ('instrument') can be set up easily. For example, suppose >you've got a set of 36 samples, one for each (12-ET) note of a three >octave range (say, of bowed violin strokes). And you want to 'build a >violin' in 22-ET (or something) over 3 octaves. Imagine this: select >range of samples (Sample Number 0-35); select range of partials >(Keygroups) 0-65 (3 octaves in 22-ET); select source tuning type >(12-ET); select destination tuning type (22-ET); select preferred >deviation (ie., whether sampler chooses nearest sample to map from >above or below desired destination frequency range - preferably from >above, so destination is not 'mickey mouse' ); press GO. Sampler >creates 66 partials, maps samples 0-35 to said 66 partials, and >retunes accordingly. Impossible? > >[Loffink, John] You want to map 12TET sample sets to nTET sample sets. Of >course what you suggest is not impossible. My point is that it is not >necessary to do this by using more "Partials" (I hate Roland's usage of that >term, which is why I always put it in quotes) or zones if the instrument >supports microtuning tables. The microtuning table, if implemented properly, >will do the mapping for you, automatically, without all the recompilation and >excessive memory usage. Granted, you will not have precise control at a less >than semitone level of how the samples are mapped, but is this really >necessary? You will get "mickey mouse" effects no matter where your base >sample was recorded at, this is the effect of shifting the formant (fixed >resonant) frequencies of the sample. > >Increasing the number of "Partials" will not solve your problem, because >you'll have a new one -- the sampler's internal RAM will not have enough >storage to handle the increase. Program parameters are most likely to be >stored in 64K to 512K local RAM inside the unit, not your 32M to 128M sample >RAM. If you now ask manufacturers to increase the local RAM just for >microtonal support, I can tell you that none of them will do it because that >increases the price of the hardware. > >I'm sorry if this is getting too technical again, but you can't really >understand the ramifications of your requests without a little understanding >on how today's synthesizers and samplers work. My points are 1) for >microtonal scales to be implemented in mass produced instruments it must be >economically realistic for the manufacturers to do so, and 2) for microtonal >scales to be used by non-specialists it must be as easy as possible for them >to be changed. You can't accomplish either of these by defining microtonal >scales at the "Partial" or zone level. > John Loffink john.loffink@compaq.com > SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: Aline Surman Subject: b5th ratios PostedDate: 12-01-98 21:33:55 SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu $MessageStorage: 0 $UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH RouteTimes: 12-01-98 21:34:20-12-01-98 21:34:21,12-01-98 21:34:10-12-01-98 21:34:10 DeliveredDate: 12-01-98 21:34:10 Categories: $Revisions: Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C125658A.0071009F; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:34:46 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA18058; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:34:56 +0100 Received: from yalta.NL.net by ns (smtpxd); id XA18021 Received: from ella.mills.edu ([144.91.3.20]:14418 "HELO ella.mills.edu" ident: "TIMEDOUT") by yalta.NL.net with SMTP id <5147-2135>; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:33:55 +0100 Received: (qmail 22708 invoked from network); 12 Jan 1998 12:32:02 -0800 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Jan 1998 12:32:02 -0800 Message-Id: <34BA85A5.74B9@dnvr.uswest.net> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu