[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
Title: | * * Computer Music, MIDI, and Related Topics * * |
Notice: | Conference has been write-locked. Use new version. |
Moderator: | DYPSS1::SCHAFER |
|
Created: | Thu Feb 20 1986 |
Last Modified: | Mon Aug 29 1994 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 2852 |
Total number of notes: | 33157 |
1968.0. "Dispense with Quantization (someday)" by ANT::JANZEN (T - 500 picoseconds and counting) Thu Apr 20 1989 17:42
Wouldn't it be swell to get away from clock ticks and measures
altogether in MIDI sequencers?
Which would be better? To have a clock tick be the ultimate measure
bar lining up all events in a piece, or to have real numbers (floating
numbers, exponential notation numbers) in seconds define the time
before the next event on a particular line (separate lines are independent).
With the latter, it would be possible to notate pieces that have
a free rhythm the way they are written. It's one thing to say that
you could make a score that approximated a piece by Conlong Nancarrow,
in which separate lines have tempos in an irrational proportion,
and another to say that the sequencer notation allowed you to set
separate tempi in separate lines (staffs, perhaps), say in the ratio
100 to 1.414... Or close enough that audible rounding error did
not appear in 2 minutes or 10 minutes.
Or be able to notate Reich's Piano Phase the way it is written and
get it played correctly? (two pianos playing the same phrase at
different tempi, say for example MM 60 and MM 59.7 (I calculated
a real example for the piece). Isn't this better than calculating
the quantizaton differences all the way through a 12-minute version
of the piece?
Let's hear it for floating numbers and separate tempi on separate
lines.
Two possible implementations might involve either the computer
calculating the time to the next event on any staff, and using one
time counter to time it out, or using separate counters to quantize
separate lines, interrupting the processor for each next event.
Tom
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
1968.1 | ADAWI that arpeggio! | GUESS::YERAZUNIS | I lifted my uncomprehending eyes to the heavens. | Thu Apr 20 1989 19:22 | 22 |
|
Minor problem:
incremental time :== "play this note nn.nn microseconds after the
last note on this channel"
absolute time :== "play this note nn.nn seconds after the start
of the piece.
If you use "incremental time" then roundoff errors
will tend to accumulate, especially between two tracks played
simultaneously but without inter-track synchronizations.
If you use "absolute time" then you can't "subroutine" choruses
and fills. Every musical event can happen only in one place in
the piece.
Conclusion:
an advanced sequencer must support the concept of a "SYNCH"
operation between two tracks.
|
1968.2 | | SALSA::MOELLER | Digital/ISO 2386 Compliance Group | Thu Apr 20 1989 20:21 | 6 |
| Sounds like a SMPTE - oriented sequencer. I haven't paid too much
attention, not being in the video biz, but there are several programs
like Opcode's QUE for the MAC, that use SMPTE time, absolute from
the beginnning of the track, rather than bar/beat/tick timestamping.
karl
|