<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<p>Kent Swafford wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>oThis might be easy to imagine, but it would be impossible
to execute.
<p>How would the ETD differentiate between the upper and lower note that
you
<br>say will be sounding at once with all those (slightly offset) coincident
<br>partials sounding all at the same time? With all the coincident partials
<br>going at once, how could one display be assigned to one note and the
other
<br>display assigned to the other note? Solve _that_ problem and I'm sure
the
<br>programmers will be happy to incorporate your idea.
<br> </blockquote>
Kent, once one references the lower note you dont have to play it again...
we do this all the time on a much simpler level... re-read what I wrote.
Then take tunelab and play A4 at a piano and use the i or o key to stop
the display... then play A5. Do this for any / all relevant partials of
A4. The only difference between doing that and what is presently suggested
is to display more then one partial at a time.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<br>> Again I must say I fail to see why there is so much resistance to
<br>> multipartial displays amoung ETD authors. Isnt it time we move
<br>> past the dancing dial ?
<p>I know you don't mean to negatively characterize the state of the art
of
<br>ETD's (but it sure sounds like it).
<p>Multi-partial displays could be developed to read more than one partial
of a
<br>_single_ sounding note, but would you then describe them as the "dancing
<br>dials", plural? The displays dance because they are more sensitive
than
<br>piano strings are stable. Less sensitive displays could be developed,
or in
<br>the case of RCT, you can just go to the preferences for the spinner
and
<br>decrease the sensitivity, but less sensitivity is a loss not a gain.
<br> </blockquote>
Not if they did what I describe above. It would simply be a way of comparing
how the partials line up.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<br>Sophisticated use of modern ETD's (with their lone single displays
of one
<br>partial at a time) _can_ in the course of a tuning make use of data
from
<br>more than one partial of individual notes. In other words, the lack
of
<br>multi-partial displays can be ameliorated through good tuning technique.</blockquote>
whats your point... whats your point....??? grin...
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<p> Or tuning a note
<br>at its 3rd partial, who says you can't play the note an octave below
and
<br>check out its 6th partial(s)? Or tuning a treble note at its second
partial,
<br>who says you can't play the note two octaves below to see how the 8th
<br>partials of the unison check out?</blockquote>
Now think about this statement of yours Kent... and you may see what I
am after... because that is exactly the point. Direct reference of already
tuned notes, compared <i>after</i> reference to notes to be tuned.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<p>Its true, there was a time when I thought ETD's needed multi-partial
<br>displays, and I still look forward to seeing ETD's that incorporate
this
<br>feature. But, I believe existing ETD's can right now provide much of
the
<br>benefit you seem to be seeking.</blockquote>
You misunderstand what I am after if you think this... grin... I CAN force
tunelab to show me what I want it to... but I have to go back and forth
switching partials and re-referenceing them.... takes forever... all because
the display is set up to show only one partial at a time.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Kent Swafford</blockquote>
<p>--
<br>Richard Brekne
<br>RPT, N.P.T.F.
<br>Bergen, Norway
<br><A HREF="mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no">mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no</A>
<br> </html>