source file: mills3.txt Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:08:41 +0100 Subject: Negative IQ of sender (POL) From: "Patrick Ozzard-Low" John Loffink wrote: > > >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. And I, like a complete twonk, completely mis-read what he'd said. For some unknown reason I thought he was saying that more 'partials' would eat into available sample RAM, rather than system/program RAM (or ROM?). This puts into question the positive rating of my IQ and my ability to read plain English. So I'm very sorry for the redundant explanations in the last digest. And John, contrary to what I said, wasn't remotely wrong. John wrote: >>> 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. I wrote: > I agree entirely with the general points 1 and 2. I'm unconvinced > however about the last sentence of this paragraph. John's reasoning is: to greatly extend the number of 'partials'/zones available would take up too much system memory, causing the cost of the unit to increase too much. That seems suprising - but it may be true (?) Except that, as I understand, the E4 does not have this architectural feature (ie., more 'partials' do eat into sample RAM, they certainly did on the EIII). The drawbacks on the E4 are rather : cost, tuning resolution, speed of setting up the zones/samples for ATS. Apologies again for my inability to read.......... Patrick Ozzard-Low SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: DMB5561719 Subject: New reviews at Juxtaposition Ezine PostedDate: 16-01-98 15:27:38 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: 16-01-98 15:27:43-16-01-98 15:27:43,16-01-98 15:26:47-16-01-98 15:26:47 DeliveredDate: 16-01-98 15:26:47 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 C125658E.004F6EF6; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:27:37 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA02598; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:27:38 +0100 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:27:38 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA30020 Received: (qmail 28737 invoked from network); 16 Jan 1998 06:27:34 -0800 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Jan 1998 06:27:34 -0800 Message-Id: <63079538.34bf6d75@aol.com> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu