Re: OSC next

On 05/13/2016 08:06 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:26:49AM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> 
>> On 05/13/2016 12:38 AM, Len Ovens wrote:
>>
>>> /strip/gainabs
>>> /strip/gaindB
>>> /strip/fader
>>> /strip/fader1024
>>
>> can't comment on whether to retain all, but if only one remains, it
>> should be about physical fader position, not gain. it should be up
>> to the DAW to decide what a fader position means, and the
>> controller's job is just to mimic the GUI fader.
> 
> For MIDI I'd agree - given the limited 0..127 range, mapping 
> to the actual parameter value can be done only at the receiving
> end.
> 
> For OSC I'm not that sure. The controlling source doesn't
> have to be a human adjusting the value by being able to hear
> the result (and hence not needing any numerical value).
> I'd retain the gaindB option as without that it's impossible
> to set a defined gain. 
> 

I'd use the same argumentation for a gain coefficient which is
equivalent to dB and similarly well defined (fader position is not).

The problem with dB is -inf. While OSC does have a representation for
infinity, it is not very convenient to use and I doubt that many OSC
surfaces support it as float argument.

If we can agree to specify that a dB value below a given threshold (e.g
-192) is interpreted as -infinity,  I'd vote for dB, if not a
gain-factor >= 0 will be a lot more useful.

2c,
robin

2c,
robin


_______________________________________________
ardour-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour.org