[gmpi] Re: Topic 6: Time representation

  • From: Chris Grigg <gmpi-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:54:35 -0700

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 01:54:17 -0700, Chris Grigg wrote: 
 I mean, yes, time is fluid, but then again so's pitch.  Should we be
 using floats for note pitches too...?

Er, definatly.

OK, we can talk about that later then. ;-)


I'm tempted to agree about time though. 64bit ints seem easier to deal
with on the whole.

But Frederick was talking about musical time, not linear time.

One other thing about floats for musical time, and I'll let it go: If a sequence with high-resolution integer beat subdivisions is moved from one sequencer to another sequencer, there's a good event timing grid so the event time should be the same, or very close to the same, on the two sequencers. With beat subdivisions encoded as floats, there is more of a possibility for rounding errors. I would suggest that this may -- just may, I'm saying -- be a case where industry-wide repeatability might be more important than highest possible time resolution on a single sequencer.

Well, that, and the whole MIDI sequencer mfr pushback effect if we abandon the music event timing grid model. GMPI will tank if it's not used in the major sequencers.

(Are folks .really. so seriously cramped by a 960 ppqn grid?)

-- Chris

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2003