Swing & Logarithm

what logarithm is used here?
The test consisted of:

selected a sample, trim mode, I applied timestrech manual, number of beats: 4
new: 120 (tempo)
tsig 1 / 4


the result of the length of the sample1:
st: 00000000 end: 00088205*

I did the same with another sample different (in this case, a kick drum), I applied several times to try to get timestretch same result, but it was different:

the result of the length of sample2:
st: 00000000 end: 00088182*

* we haven´t obtained the same numerical value in the box END.



On the other hand,
Given this, I could say:

00088205 = one bar length.
00022051 or 00022045 = one beat.
00001378 = 1 / 16 (for each step)

a trick:
Introduce silence at the beginning of the samples to generate amazing swings!

this could be a new concept, is not governed by the standard musical standard theory (as well as portamento, picth, timestrech, New features in OS3, pattern bank ... created by jj)

convinces you all?

hmm, I think you must elaborate a little.

were the samples you started out with originally the same length?

i have messed around with adding a slight bit of silence in front of hihats and such, it can work pretty good for swing.

that is essentially what swing is,... space.

wouldnt it be easier to learn to play it in, without quantize, rather than add silence to every file?

Is this the thing you're trying to achieve: http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~mpc1000/os2xl/strength3.htm ?

I ... don't understand

do you mean algorithm, not logarithm?

at 120bpm and a sampling rate of 44.1kHz, a four beat bar should be 2 seconds, so 88200 samples

so a single beat is 22050, and a 1/16 note is 1378.125, not an exact number of samples

but I don't understand the point you're making in your post

evil A Sulli wrote:hmm, I think you must elaborate a little.

damien907 wrote:were the samples you started out with originally the same length?

no, of course.

damien907 wrote:i have messed around with adding a slight bit of silence in front of hihats and such, it can work pretty good for swing.

brucker wrote:that is essentially what swing is,... space.

ok

brucker wrote:wouldnt it be easier to learn to play it in, without quantize, rather than add silence to every file?

maybe,

m:t:c wrote:Is this the thing you're trying to achieve: http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~mpc1000/os2xl/strength3.htm ?

no.
but it helped me to suggest this idea. thanks!!!
see you here: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=77422&p=1392759#p1392759

Pastor-of-Muppets wrote:I ... don't understand

do you mean algorithm, not logarithm?

at 120bpm and a sampling rate of 44.1kHz, a four beat bar should be 2 seconds, so 88200 samples

so a single beat is 22050, and a 1/6 note is 1378.125, not an exact number of samples

but I don't understand the point you're making in your post

I answer you:
I'm happy, I liked your entry, but ... then ... need an answer.
My test has bug!!
so if I'm in os2 ... and could be earlier.
you observe from what date with this little bug.

Thanks for all your attention.

sally damien907 brucker m:t:c Pastor-of-Muppets wrote:what logarithm is used here?

The similar test

+ new bug.

read & watch it, please!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xp554v7uMk

thanks

how long were the samples before you time-stretched them?

were they exactly the right length? If not, then I'm not surprised that they are not exactly 88200 samples after stretching

I still don't understand what you mean by "logarithm" ... maybe it means something different in spanish

Pastor-of-Muppets wrote:
were they exactly the right length? If not, then I'm not surprised that they are not exactly 88200 samples after stretching

why you say this? I am with you but, the results to adjust both to 120 do not get the same final value, I think. 88200 are not exactly.

Pastor-of-Muppets wrote:I still don't understand what you mean by "logarithm" ... maybe it means something different in spanish

logarithm, I referred to this process to perform complicated mathematical programming operation.

sally wrote:

Pastor-of-Muppets wrote:
were they exactly the right length? If not, then I'm not surprised that they are not exactly 88200 samples after stretching

why you say this? I am with you but, the results to adjust both to 120 do not get the same final value, I think. 88200 are not exactly.

they had different original tempos. did they also have different original lengths?

Pastor-of-Muppets wrote:I still don't understand what you mean by "logarithm" ... maybe it means something different in spanish

logarithm, I referred to this process to perform complicated mathematical programming operation.

then you do mean algorithm. a logarithm is something different.

Pastor-of-Muppets wrote:

sally wrote:

Pastor-of-Muppets wrote:
were they exactly the right length? If not, then I'm not surprised that they are not exactly 88200 samples after stretching

why you say this? I am with you but, the results to adjust both to 120 do not get the same final value, I think. 88200 are not exactly.

they had different original tempos. did they also have different original lengths?

yes, sure.

Pastor-of-Muppets wrote:

sally wrote:

Pastor-of-Muppets wrote:I still don't understand what you mean by "logarithm" ... maybe it means something different in spanish

logarithm, I referred to this process to perform complicated mathematical programming operation.

then you do mean algorithm. a logarithm is something different.

Yes, I mistook my words, sorry.
you lose your numbers?

Pastor-of-Muppets wrote: and a 1/6 note is 1378.125

1/6

1/16 - fixed - thanks