source file: m1445.txt Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 19:45:31 +0000 Subject: Microtunable wish-list From: "Patrick Ozzard-Low" POL wrote: > > Will the Ensoniq extrapolate an arbitrary-number-division > > *non-equally- tempered* non-octave scale? John Loffink replied: > 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. Excellent. Thanks. Also, I'm basically in agreement with all your responses to my comments on the wishlist. Of course, as you'lI understand, I treat the list as a place to spark ideas rather a place to define what goes out to anyone off-list. > The idea is to keep this as simple as possible, thereby raising the > probability that these ideas >will be implemented. Yes. At the same time its worth saying (here) what you really *do* want - in case someone here thinks of a way of simplifying it and making it more likely to happen. > > 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? Pass. Is Bill (Sethares) on the list these days? any feelings on this? Neither is something I use at all, currently, but the option would be hugely advantageous, and I'm sure I would were it convenient. Two major problems are (a) defining the logic (b) making that logic configurable. One thought: personally, I think I would be more or less content if this could be implemented as a convenient 'post-production' technique. But people who are interested in using these machines for live performance would presumably want more than this? > > 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. Personally, I'm perfectly happy with cents only. The idea of having a unit that tunes in terms of ratios is, I think, rather interesting. > > As regards interface: > > It's a good idea to give something like this as an example, but > phrase them as being options. Yes indeed: my example was meant to be just a suggestion to bounce around. > It's important to break away the things that make > microtuning convenient from those that make it possible. As an ex database programmer I guess I thought the interface I described very simple. Maybe not for a synth/sampler? But yes, I agree. > I'd really like to see any possible simplifications to the wishlist. That might be acheieved by aiming a wish-list at a particular forthcoming model from a particular manufacturer - choosing one option only (from your three) and saying what you think is both realistic and as near to ideal as will not be considered crazy for that particular model. I guess the thing may be carved in stone by the time one hears of new models (?) but it seems worth a try. No? I have drafted a letters to Roland/Akai but not happy with it yet. By the way, how would you feel if I referred to your wishlist URL in it? Patrick O-L