Microtunable wish-list

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