Re: Microtonal support

[Graham Percival]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 12:09:10PM +0800, Graham Breed wrote:
> I've been investigating the new pitch model with Hans.  It is, in
> fact, better than either of us thought but some of that isn't
> documented.  So pay attention.

Great!  I'm not certain if any of the doc team has much experience
with microtones -- let's just assume that they don't.  Could you
propose some changes to the docs to make this more clear?  Ideally
it would look something like this:

----
In NR 15.2.4 Accidentals, add this paragraph and example after the
third current paragraph:

blah blah blah

\relative c' {
  b4 l8 a8 h4
}


In addition, please add a new subsection NR 15.2.5 Changing
default microtone definitions, which would contain the following:

blee blee blee

\relative c' {
  b4 l16 e32 e4..
}

blargl blargl

\relative c' {
  b4 \times 2/3{ l8 a r} g8.. l4*4/3 e8
}

---


Even if your proposed changes need a bit of modification to fit
into the existing docs, having a concrete proposal will help us a
lot.  Again, please assume that the doc team knows nothing about
microtones -- this will help us avoid misunderstandings.

> First, alterations are specified in terms of what the documentation
> vaguely calls "whole tones".  They are specifically intervals of 200
> cents or steps of 6 note equal temperament.  For many tunings the size
> of a tone or double sharp will not have this value.

Could you identify specific place(s) where this should be stated,
and/or reword the sentences to avoid the vague "whole tones" term?


Any doc person want to be the contact person for this?  If not, I
could handle it.  (kind-of starting GOP two weeks early)

Cheers,
- Graham