On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:57:33 -0500
Spencer Russell <Spencer.Russell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:04:02AM -0500, Joe Hartley wrote:
> >The last thing I'd want to have happen is to
> > have a parameter wrap from full off to full on because the controller
> > sent out a value of 3..2..1..0..127.
> >
> I think I would prefer the dial to send relative information as
> to what direction it's turning, so that you can have more than
> 127 different values controlled by one knob.
Uhhh, wha??? Do you mean turning the knob left sends out, say,
CC (control change) data on channel 1, and turning it right sends it
out on channel 2?
I can't fathom having a knob that controls parameter A when I turn it
to the left, and parameter B when I turn it to the right. If I turn
a little too far and reduce my parameter beyond what I want, I have to
keep turning that way until I get to the value I want, instead of turning
it slightly the other way?
That's so unintuitive it'd make my brain melt. Dunno about anyone else.
> It's not exceedingly
> difficult to take a wrapping controller and make it functionally
> the same, but if the encoder just stops at 0 and 127, it makes
> that impossible. I do agree, though, that the wrapping doesn't
> seem like a very good idea.
Keep in mind that there's no MIDI granularity of greater than 128.
You can't have a parameter that's < 0 or > 127. That's a fundamental
part of the MIDI spec.
maybe I've completely misunderstood. If I have, I'd be happy to be
challenged to think about the user interface in a whole new way.
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
