source file: m1444.txt Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:05:02 -0500 Subject: Re: Microtunable wishlist From: "jloffink" > From: "Patrick Ozzard-Low" > Will the Ensoniq extrapolate an arbitrary-number-division > *non-equally- tempered* non-octave scale? That's interesting, I > didn't realise it went that far - I thought it could only extraopolate > *equally-tempered* non-octave scales? But you're saying the Ensoniq > will allow a 23 note scale, with user specified non-equal divisions, > which 'repeats' at intervals of 7/4 (and leaves specific keyboard > keys within the 23 steps blank)? (for example). Yes, but if you extrapolate from key A to key B and the desired interval is not an exact integer cents division you might get some small error (1 cent per range) in the extrapolation. Normally, you define a full octave and extrapolate that. > 1. Explain why high end resolution of 0.0061 cents would be useful? > Otherwise manufacturers will assume craziness? Suggest other options > and why? That's the highest resolution of the MIDI Tuning Standard. It's not useful for me, but is for some people doing drones. By high end I'm really referring to computer synthesis type programs, not your everyday keyboard synthesizer. This should be spelled out in the wishlist. MIDI response isn't fast enough to make that pitch resolution usable due to phase cancellations, as discussed previously in the list. Manufacturers will think we're crazy asking for 0.1 cent resolution. I'll probably rephrase the pitch resolutions as "to 0.1 cent or best possible cents resolution" and add some exposition to the requests. In a wavetable synthesizer the underlying samples would never be tuned to that accuracy. Sorry, but it's true. Writing some new code is one thing, but manufacturers are not going to order their sound development groups to tune everything to 0.1 cent accuracy just for us microtonalist's benefit. That would be a huge labor effort on their part. The idea is to keep this as simple as possible, thereby raising the probability that these ideas will be implemented. > 3. I'm unclear how far the last line of your high-end spec addresses > the question of adaptive tunings ("real-time updates of note > pitches is selectable per note as instant pitch correction or new > note only"). Could this be made clearer/ elaborated upon? An > option to invoke built-in, user-configurable adaptivity should indeed > be a requirement - at least in an ideal high-end machine. How best > to provide *user configurability* for real-time adaptivit(ies) is not > my area - but others might like to suggest? I'm open to any ideas on this. I got the idea from the Justonic folks. I use new note only updates myself. They were more inclined to real-time updates, giving as an example barbershop quartets where a pitch swoop wouldn't be out of place. The MIDI Tuning standard also requests real-time updates. Do we really need both types available simultaneously? > 5. Measurements in Cents and/or Hz and/or *Ratios*(?). To the > What-Limit? Again, we need to keep things simple for the manufacturers. Measurements in cents is all we need to define any scale. > As regards interface: here's an off-the-top-of ny-head sketch of the > sort of thing I'd like to see: > > Click on a button called 'Tuning'; > Up comes a dialog box, which says: > New or Load or Edit > New is new, Load loads pre-defined tuning configuration; Edit edits > one. Suppose we choose 'New' - etc. It's a good idea to give something like this as an example, but phrase them as being options. It's important to break away the things that make microtuning convenient from those that make it possible. Asking or demanding too much work from the software engineers who write these programs is likely to get us nothing in return. I'd really like to see any possible simplifications to the wishlist. John Loffink jloffink@pdq.net