source file: m1447.txt Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 17:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: Microtunable wishlist From: gbreed@cix.compulink.co.uk (Graham Breed) John Loffink wrote: >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. What difference does it make how the samples are tuned? So long as you correct for mistuning, there shouldn't be problem. That is, record a sample as being Eb, 0.32 cents sharp of equal temperament, or whatever. It's really easy to work out the pitch of a sample: count the number of bytes in the loop. Anyway, give us a sampler and we can tune the samples ourselves. And a lot of voices will use square or sawtooth waves which can be tuned accurately. This isn't a good argument for poor tuning precision, even if it is the argument they give. Drew Skyfyre wrote: > Hate to be a wet blanket, but how many commercial synth co.s do you > think are actually ever going to implement realistic microtuning > capabilities ? Well, we can but ask. Most manufacturers seem to be ignorant that we _want_ higher precision. I prefer to focus my efforts on encouraging people to use the tuning capability they already have. Hence my website -- now with an equal temperament page! There we are, had to get the plug in. > Ensoniqs do 0.4 [cents] Do they? Have you tested the accuracy, or is this merely the precision of the tuning table? Graham Breed gbreed@cix.co.uk www.cix.co.uk/~gbreed