Re: MIDI tick resolution

Gilberto: > Karl Hammar wrote > > The technical limitation of midi file format is that the tick is a > > 15bit quantity, i.e. the maximum value is 2^15-1 = 32767. ... > The only issue of going overboard with that value is that some DAWs might > then complain when opening these files (I never tried

Re: MIDI tick resolution

Hi Karl, thanks for your reply! Karl Hammar wrote > The technical limitation of midi file format is that the tick is a > 15bit quantity, i.e. the maximum value is 2^15-1 = 32767. > > [...] > > So you can't get 128*9*5*7 = 40320, but 64*9*5*7 = 20160 is possible, > and if you really need

Re: MIDI tick resolution

David: > Malte Meyn writes: > > > Am 19.03.2018 um 14:47 schrieb k...@aspodata.se: > >> You could try the attached rudimentary patch and recompile your > >> lilypond source, see if that solves your problem, and report back. > > Would it be possible to make a patch that

Re: MIDI tick resolution

Gilberto: ... > Also keep in mind that tick resolution is given in pulses per quarter note > (PPQ), not seconds. This means that a slow piece will have a lower > resolution /in true time/, i.e. ticks per second. I don't think resolution /in true time/ matters, since each tick is "exact" in some

Re: MIDI tick resolution

Just one more example, this time from old music, from Beethoven's/ Sonata Pathétique/. Look at the last beat of the last bar in the image below: At 384 PPQ, the very last beat is a quarter note

Re: MIDI tick resolution

Hi all, thanks for all replies. I will not enter on the merit of what can be perceived by ear or not at a reasonable tempo, we already have plenty of that in the audio parameter wars (44100 vs 48000 Hz, 16 vs 24 bit, etc.) But akin to those, it's a fact that modern DAWs have much higher MIDI tick

Re: MIDI tick resolution

Hi all, thanks for all replies. I will not enter on the merit of what can be perceived by ear or not at a reasonable tempo, we already have plenty of that in the audio parameter wars (44100 vs 48000 Hz, 16 vs 24 bit, etc.) But akin to those, it's a fact that modern DAWs have much higher MIDI tick

Re: MIDI tick resolution

Thomas Morley writes: > 2018-03-20 2:49 GMT+01:00 Ivan Kuznetsov : >> Gilberto Agostinho wrote: >>> >>> Does anyone know if it possible to change the tick resolution of LilyPond's >>> MIDI output to a value other

Re: MIDI tick resolution

2018-03-20 2:49 GMT+01:00 Ivan Kuznetsov : > Gilberto Agostinho wrote: >> >> Does anyone know if it possible to change the tick resolution of LilyPond's >> MIDI output to a value other than the default 384? One reason for wanting >> this

Re: MIDI tick resolution

On Mon 19 Mar 2018 at 21:04:47 (-0500), Karlin High wrote: > On 3/19/2018 8:49 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote: > >So what if four notes are of length 77 and one note is length 76? > >No one can hear the difference. > > I'd say so, too. But human-listening is only one use case for a MIDI > file, and in

Re: MIDI tick resolution

On 3/19/2018 8:49 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote: So what if four notes are of length 77 and one note is length 76? No one can hear the difference. I'd say so, too. But human-listening is only one use case for a MIDI file, and in this area I don't know what others would surprise me. Example:

Re: MIDI tick resolution

Gilberto Agostinho wrote: > > Does anyone know if it possible to change the tick resolution of LilyPond's > MIDI output to a value other than the default 384? One reason for wanting > this change is due to the fact that 384 cannot be divided by 5 and so > quintuplets on

Re: MIDI tick resolution

k...@aspodata.se writes: > David: >> k...@aspodata.se writes: > ... >> > You could try the attached rudimentary patch and recompile your > ... >> The patch is pretty awful. > > Please, don't be rude, I did write it was rudimentary, you don't need > to restate that. Hm, though my proposals seem

Re: MIDI tick resolution

David: > k...@aspodata.se writes: ... > > You could try the attached rudimentary patch and recompile your ... > The patch is pretty awful. Please, don't be rude, I did write it was rudimentary, you don't need to restate that. Regards, /Karl Hammar

Re: MIDI tick resolution

Am 19.03.2018 um 14:59 schrieb David Kastrup: I think we'd rather want this value to be read from some \midi layout block variable when Midi is getting initialized. That would be better than reading from a context property of course. ___

Re: MIDI tick resolution

Malte Meyn writes: > Am 19.03.2018 um 14:47 schrieb k...@aspodata.se: >> You could try the attached rudimentary patch and recompile your >> lilypond source, see if that solves your problem, and report back. > > Would it be possible to make a patch that reads this from a

Re: MIDI tick resolution

k...@aspodata.se writes: > Giberto: >> Does anyone know if it possible to change the tick resolution of LilyPond's >> MIDI output to a value other than the default 384? One reason for wanting >> this change is due to the fact that 384 cannot be divided by 5 and so >> quintuplets on a crotchet are

Re: MIDI tick resolution

Am 19.03.2018 um 14:47 schrieb k...@aspodata.se: You could try the attached rudimentary patch and recompile your lilypond source, see if that solves your problem, and report back. Would it be possible to make a patch that reads this from a context property so that the user could input

Re: MIDI tick resolution

Giberto: > Does anyone know if it possible to change the tick resolution of LilyPond's > MIDI output to a value other than the default 384? One reason for wanting > this change is due to the fact that 384 cannot be divided by 5 and so > quintuplets on a crotchet are not precise. For instance, the

MIDI tick resolution

Hi all, Does anyone know if it possible to change the tick resolution of LilyPond's MIDI output to a value other than the default 384? One reason for wanting this change is due to the fact that 384 cannot be divided by 5 and so quintuplets on a crotchet are not precise. For instance, the default