There are three of him - ME - MYSELF and US.cranium wrote:Don't forget the fact that he might be travelling between parallel universes.murnau wrote:@ memyselfandus: Are you really quoted your own post not once but twice?
FL Studio 12 Released!
-
- KVRAF
- 2696 posts since 3 Aug, 2003 from Narnia
-
- KVRAF
- 5175 posts since 29 Apr, 2006
The first person to ever noticeAndywanders wrote:There are three of him - ME - MYSELF and US.cranium wrote:Don't forget the fact that he might be travelling between parallel universes.murnau wrote:@ memyselfandus: Are you really quoted your own post not once but twice?
-
- KVRist
- 180 posts since 12 Mar, 2014
DELETE
-
el-bo (formerly ebow) el-bo (formerly ebow) https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=208007
- KVRAF
- 17958 posts since 24 May, 2009 from A galaxy, far far away
as long as you don't want more than one colour per projectNokenoku wrote:Omg, this is boring ...
Could we please get back to the important feature requests such as "customizable colors"?
-
- KVRAF
- 5175 posts since 29 Apr, 2006
Thank you for the video linkYorrrrrr wrote:
it actually highlights why it's so frustrating to work with multiple time signatures in fl. "That's all well and good until it comes time to record audio to a click and everyone's shit gets f*cked the f*ck up. well taking that example where the rhythmic value of the kick stays the same but the pattern changes. At first I thought the tempo was staying the same and it went from like 4/4 to 3/4. In this case, if a drummer wanted to record that to a click, the stronger 1-beat of the metronome would be landing in places that wouldn't be the 1-beat which would be manageable I guess but incredibly off-putting. "
"No, but you could make your own click. The click in FL is just a sound that's played to a beat which you could yourself design in a pattern and arrange as you see fit. "
"how did you go about doing that actually? And how long did it take?"
The person in the video mentions right off the bat that they have never worked with multiple time signatures in any other daw..
It also reminded me the weird thing that happens when you change note values in fl. for instance.. when you change to triplets.. the notes do not ring out in equal triplet durations. works fine for drums but is WEIRD when you are working with other instruments. the notes cut off early and you have to manually stretch the notes to fill the full triplet time.
None of this matters to me at the moment. I just don't use it. I'll check back in a couple years.
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
Today I learnt the key I was missing, and stupid timesigs make sense to me now.
I couldn't understand what was the point of the denumerator, or the concept of "notes", considering that we already had all of the needed parameters for the equation:
-we had beats defined by the BPM
-we had beats per bar, as the numerator of the timesig
..so I didn't see what else was needed here
I was saying that music theory was for masochists, and I didn't even know it went this far: so apparently "beats" in BPM IS NOT the same as "beats" in the rest of the music theory.
2 parameters in an equation, both are called "beat", and they are DIFFERENT THINGS, I mean wtf, what is wrong with music theory? Worse, it's hard to find info on this confusing thing. It's one thing to have 2 different things named the same (even just "beat 2" would help) for historical reasons/conventions or whatever, but then that's the very first thing a tutorial should start with, "warning, these 2 have the same name but are different things".
So this is what the denominator of the timesig is for:
-we have the "beats" in BPM, aka "beats 1"
-the "beats on a grid/in a metronome", aka "beats 2" relate to "beats 1" according to the denumerator of the timesig.
And this is why a metronome, supposed to play on the beat, should change its speed while the tempo does not, when the denumerator of the timesig changes. Because the metronome plays on "beat 2" while the BPM define "beat 1".
I'm awed both by this fact & that it doesn't seem to be surprising anyone/that it wasn't mentioned in 30 pages of this thread, while this was claimed to be "very simple".
I couldn't understand what was the point of the denumerator, or the concept of "notes", considering that we already had all of the needed parameters for the equation:
-we had beats defined by the BPM
-we had beats per bar, as the numerator of the timesig
..so I didn't see what else was needed here
I was saying that music theory was for masochists, and I didn't even know it went this far: so apparently "beats" in BPM IS NOT the same as "beats" in the rest of the music theory.
2 parameters in an equation, both are called "beat", and they are DIFFERENT THINGS, I mean wtf, what is wrong with music theory? Worse, it's hard to find info on this confusing thing. It's one thing to have 2 different things named the same (even just "beat 2" would help) for historical reasons/conventions or whatever, but then that's the very first thing a tutorial should start with, "warning, these 2 have the same name but are different things".
So this is what the denominator of the timesig is for:
-we have the "beats" in BPM, aka "beats 1"
-the "beats on a grid/in a metronome", aka "beats 2" relate to "beats 1" according to the denumerator of the timesig.
And this is why a metronome, supposed to play on the beat, should change its speed while the tempo does not, when the denumerator of the timesig changes. Because the metronome plays on "beat 2" while the BPM define "beat 1".
I'm awed both by this fact & that it doesn't seem to be surprising anyone/that it wasn't mentioned in 30 pages of this thread, while this was claimed to be "very simple".
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
what does this even mean?memyselfandus wrote:It also reminded me the weird thing that happens when you change note values in fl. for instance.. when you change to triplets.. the notes do not ring out in equal triplet durations.
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
She Changed Her Mind She Changed Her Mind https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=342043
- Banned
- 452 posts since 22 Nov, 2014 from Amsterdam
"I'm awed both by this fact & that it doesn't seem to be surprising anyone/that it wasn't mentioned in 30 pages of this thread, while this was claimed to be "very simple"."
Well, I guess changing the denominator changes the BPM. While changing the numerator changes the amount of beats. This is only half part of the story though.
Example denominator: 3/4 to 3/7. When the used time stays the same per bar: BPM increases. Obviously in this case there is no reason for a denominator. I think that is what you mean. However, if the 3/7 bar is deducted from the 3/4 bar, the bars will not be the same: obviously the 3/7 speeds up in BPM in comparison with the 3/4 bar. It will be 4/7 of the 3/4 bar. In time measurement.
-
Example numerator: 4/4 to 5/4: length of the bar increases. Or the bars stay the same in time duration. Again: this is irrelevant. The BPM stays the same but the content of the bar is increased by 1 beat..
Well, I guess changing the denominator changes the BPM. While changing the numerator changes the amount of beats. This is only half part of the story though.
Example denominator: 3/4 to 3/7. When the used time stays the same per bar: BPM increases. Obviously in this case there is no reason for a denominator. I think that is what you mean. However, if the 3/7 bar is deducted from the 3/4 bar, the bars will not be the same: obviously the 3/7 speeds up in BPM in comparison with the 3/4 bar. It will be 4/7 of the 3/4 bar. In time measurement.
-
Example numerator: 4/4 to 5/4: length of the bar increases. Or the bars stay the same in time duration. Again: this is irrelevant. The BPM stays the same but the content of the bar is increased by 1 beat..
-
- KVRAF
- 4287 posts since 6 Nov, 2009
An image line conspiracy.tony tony chopper wrote:what does this even mean?memyselfandus wrote:It also reminded me the weird thing that happens when you change note values in fl. for instance.. when you change to triplets.. the notes do not ring out in equal triplet durations.
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
Is each new post gonna make this theory even weirder?She Changed Her Mind wrote: Well, I guess changing the denominator changes the BPM.
(changing a time signature changes the tempo, really?)
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
- KVRist
- 266 posts since 4 Sep, 2005
Never heard of 3/7 time.She Changed Her Mind wrote:"I'm awed both by this fact & that it doesn't seem to be surprising anyone/that it wasn't mentioned in 30 pages of this thread, while this was claimed to be "very simple"."
Well, I guess changing the denominator changes the BPM. While changing the numerator changes the amount of beats. This is only half part of the story though.
Example denominator: 3/4 to 3/7. .
-
She Changed Her Mind She Changed Her Mind https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=342043
- Banned
- 452 posts since 22 Nov, 2014 from Amsterdam
Actually it's quite simple: one has a 7/7 signature -you can't go wrong there...... and make it a 3/7 or 4/7.. whatever signature. It's just basic math for 11 year olds. But then applied in practise. In reality.
That people are not educated well as it comes to the reality of life is their problem.
I figured out most people had plenty of time to figure out this. If they even ever *wanted* things. Which is apparently not the case between humans. This is what we aliens observe: a sheep *wants* green stuff. A human doesn't know what it wants. I guess that's the root of most trouble between humans. Because they do not know what they want; they are forced to dwell on all their insecurities rather than get actually *things done* between humans.
However.. this is just OUR 2c. It's not up to us, I guess..
That people are not educated well as it comes to the reality of life is their problem.
I figured out most people had plenty of time to figure out this. If they even ever *wanted* things. Which is apparently not the case between humans. This is what we aliens observe: a sheep *wants* green stuff. A human doesn't know what it wants. I guess that's the root of most trouble between humans. Because they do not know what they want; they are forced to dwell on all their insecurities rather than get actually *things done* between humans.
However.. this is just OUR 2c. It's not up to us, I guess..
-
- KVRAF
- 24411 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
Wow! An epiphany!tony tony chopper wrote:Today I learnt the key I was missing, and stupid timesigs make sense to me now.
I couldn't understand what was the point of the denumerator, or the concept of "notes", considering that we already had all of the needed parameters for the equation:
-we had beats defined by the BPM
-we had beats per bar, as the numerator of the timesig
..so I didn't see what else was needed here
I was saying that music theory was for masochists, and I didn't even know it went this far: so apparently "beats" in BPM IS NOT the same as "beats" in the rest of the music theory.
2 parameters in an equation, both are called "beat", and they are DIFFERENT THINGS, I mean wtf, what is wrong with music theory? Worse, it's hard to find info on this confusing thing. It's one thing to have 2 different things named the same (even just "beat 2" would help) for historical reasons/conventions or whatever, but then that's the very first thing a tutorial should start with, "warning, these 2 have the same name but are different things".
So this is what the denominator of the timesig is for:
-we have the "beats" in BPM, aka "beats 1"
-the "beats on a grid/in a metronome", aka "beats 2" relate to "beats 1" according to the denumerator of the timesig.
And this is why a metronome, supposed to play on the beat, should change its speed while the tempo does not, when the denumerator of the timesig changes. Because the metronome plays on "beat 2" while the BPM define "beat 1".
I'm awed both by this fact & that it doesn't seem to be surprising anyone/that it wasn't mentioned in 30 pages of this thread, while this was claimed to be "very simple".
"Beat" is the one and the same thing, though, no matter the context. The difference is that time signatures don't relate to tempo defined in BPM, but rather to the way you count your way through the bars. That's why metronome can go faster or slower than current BPM, because its counting depends on timesig denominator. But there's no such thing as "beat 1" and "beat 2", however if it helped you to understand what's going on, I guess fine then.