> You refer to perfect pitch and absolute pitch like they're different things -- do you realize that they're the same thing?
Are you referring to someone else's comment? I use them interchangeably in the first paragraph
120 karma · joined June 8, 2011
Are you referring to someone else's comment? I use them interchangeably in the first paragraph
I believe that people confuse it with relative pitch which usually translates to the skill of transcribing and memorizing melodies. This is very useful as a musician or even in daily life sometimes. There are people who have an innate talent for that too, but it's unrelated to perfect pitch.
In this particular case, the advantage over gist is that you can edit it offline on mobile (I ride the subway) and it syncs automatically
This is a "thought experiment" that teaches cowardice, IMO
It can be measured by recording the audio on a (timing accurate!) dedicated system and analyzing the waveform
Subtle as it may be, timing accuracy has an essential impact on how we perceive music as a whole. This is one contributor among a few as to why vintage drum machines and sequencers have become so sought after as software-baed music production has become more prevalent. The Akai MPC series (at least the 2000XL and previous) models have been found to have the most consistent timing of any machine with the Atari ST being the strongest computer sequencer.
Sorry, I don't have time to cite this stuff (breaking my own rule) but it should be easy to google
As an aside, poor timing accuracy can be a reason why in pulse-based music that some human musicians "just suck" even if they're otherwise proficient. Or some musicians are "just have it" even though they're playing something unremarkable
I work with audio and music software (in which timing accuracy is a major component). Timing accuracy 20 years ago was generally far, far better than a modern PC. The Atari ST is still the gold standard -- with regard to timing it makes Ableton Live 8 running on OSX look/sound like garbage. Without multitasking, whatever program you were using could prioritize timing over the GUI and other components in a way that a modern name brand OS won't allow
Again, pure speculation here but this may be the case at least to some degree for Win 3.1 because there aren't as many network services and other bells and whistles running in the background. It may even be the case that Win 3.1 doesn't have real multitasking. Maybe someone can chime in on that
I think in terms of security and flexibility the API may wind up being a lot more complex than it is now. Maturity aside, clearly an excellent idea and work so far...