>> So I think I change my vote to hertz, although for those who might have
>> forgotten what hertz is, perhaps just "cycles per second".
>
> That makes sense.
If there isn't a more compelling argument one way or the other, "Hertz"
is a great choice for the translators as opposed to "cycles per qu
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:23:38 -0500
> Jim Cochrane wrote:
>
>> I would vote for the most precise and complete alternative, which,
>> IMO, is "cycles per quarter note" - as long as that's a correct
>> description of the feature, and I'm sure it is. (I've not used the
>> feature, but it sounds lik
On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:23:38 -0500
Jim Cochrane wrote:
> I would vote for the most precise and complete alternative, which,
> IMO, is "cycles per quarter note" - as long as that's a correct
> description of the feature, and I'm sure it is. (I've not used the
> feature, but it sounds like somethi
I would vote for the most precise and complete alternative, which, IMO,
is "cycles per quarter note" - as long as that's a correct description
of the feature, and I'm sure it is. (I've not used the feature, but it
sounds like something I would use if I ever start using Rosegarden
intensively.)
On
While I've never used the pitchbend dialog, just off the top of my head,
"cycles per quarter note" or "hertz" makes sense. Or even "Vibrato
frequency"?
On 05/30/2013 07:53 AM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:
> On the devel list, we're talking about how to make the pitchbend dialog
> clearer.
>
> If yo
On the devel list, we're talking about how to make the pitchbend dialog
clearer.
If you use the pitchbend dialog, if the "Vibrato wavelength" field changed
to "cycles per quarter note" or "hertz", would that be easier or harder
for you to use?
Thanks,
Tom Breton (Tehom)
--
