On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:12:55 +0100, David Olofson wrote: > > > I don't get it. If you're supposed to place the scale converter > > > *first*, then how are you supposed to be able to apply anything > > > like traditional music theory, rather than pure, continous pitch > > > based theory? You will have to know the *exact* temperament of > > > the scale (to decode the input, and to generate output in the > > > same scale), even if you're only worried about notes. > > > > That holds true for per-note descriptions too. The only way you can > > improve in it is with *extensive* scale metadata. Which we dont > > have and dont plan to have. > > You're still missing the point. Note pitch is <something>/note, which > is a linear scale. With 12t, it's identical to 12tET. This is very > easy to process.
No, you're still missing the point ;) What you said is only true of 12tET, and (as we know) 12tET<->octave conversion is trivial and reversable. As soon as you have not ET scales you will have to either: 1) include lots of standardised scale metadata 2) use pitch anyway (or no other processor will understand your 'note' data) - Steve
