It would be very much more natural for me if the 7, 8 and 9 keys where mapped respectively to b, natural and # instead of natural, # and b.
A real plus would be if you could customize your keyboard affectations, of course not losing your modifications along updates...
oh please not.
One thing is to change you keyset, thats great and ok.
But many people used this 789 now for years and are pretty fast and comfortable with it.
Well, I still get my sharps and naturals mixed up: it don't seem natural (excuse the pun) for sharp to come before natural.
On the other hand, I'm sure lots of people have got used to it, so the obvious solution is to allow those of us that don't like the default key mappings to change them.
Robin
I would like 7 8 9 to be 64th note, 128th note, and 256th note (I have needed it before - just last week was the fourth time...), or maybe the brevis.
We could put flat, natural, sharp (yes, I'd rather have that order as well) on [, ], and \, as they are unassigned. I suppose we then could have { and | for double-flat and double-sharp.
I like the current key assignments. I key 100 sharps for every 64
th note.
If you post a gif of 2-3 measures that have 128
th or 256
th notes, I'll show you how you can simulate them in NWC2. I need to see the entire system. If it is too large, email it to me.
I know of only one piece that has 128
th notes and I've never seen a 256
th note in an actual score.
I'm not interested in reassigning the 7, 8 and 9. I could get used to it, but where would we then find keys for sharp, natural and flat?
Another thing - NWC2 will give you a 64th note by highlighting and using the minus key, but doesn't seem to support shorter durations.
I agree with Rick - there's far more need for easy-to-key sharp,natural,flat signs than for 128th and 256th notes.
Hmm, I think I would like to add my vote to that of Rick and David...
The order may not seem to be a natural progression but I'm not sure that really matters. It could be argued that I'm more likely to need a natural than a sharp or flat so put the natural under my index finger, next most likely is a sharp so that comes next... Of course this all depends on the genre of music you notate, thus YMMV.
I certainly don't need any shorter note durations in the 7, 8 and 9 positions - I vary rarely (read almost never) need to use anything less than a demisemiquaver (32nd note).
I add another vote to not changing the mapping on 7,8, and 9. After 4+ years my fingers are trained to go to those keys for accidentals without even thinking.
Keith
I could live with shift-7, shift-8 or shift-9 being used for shorter note lengths. Right now these key combinations just duplicate the direction keys that lie right beside the numeric keypad. Don't know how it might affect notebook computer users, though.
Anyway, keeping the current key assignments for 7, 8 and 9 doesn't mean we couldn't also use those keys for shorter duration notes and rests, in combination with, say, the shift key.
The 256
th notes aren't for viewing purposes.
I had a piece at a very slow tempo (44(?)) that had a few trills and other ornaments that sounded sluggish even with 128
th-note triplets.
I have never seen them before (except in that gag audition piece or maybe a PDQ Bach engraving...).
I had suggested [, ], and \ (see
Reply #3), but I think using the shift key is a good idea.
If you're just looking for a faster playback, you likely could use a hidden tempo change, or perhaps use the multipoint controller for the trill.
A hidden tempo change will affect the playback speed of all the staffs, so you need to find a way to keep the other staffs playing in tempo. Maybe someone else can suggest how.
I think not. Best time resolution there is a 64th.
If NWC would allow 1 click as a Time Resolution or 0.25 as a Time Offset ...
Am I the only one that finds MPC's awkward?
- restricted controllers
- one controller per mpc
- ill-defined sweep resolution
- dropdown style when there are only 2 options
- integer time offsets
- useless sliders
- only 4 events per mpc
- fixed text with fixed font
- preserve width as default
Fix these and add support for note on/off/velocity and you would have something.
I've only fiddled with MPCs a couple of times, mostly because I found them difficult to understand, and I'm only using playback for proofhearing anyway.
Nope, I too would like to see some enhancements to MPC's - especially access to (all) controllers by number as well as the current scheme...
I suppose I could have doubled all of the note values and changed the meter to four-two time.
Can't believe I didn't think of that myself...
We've all "been there." That's what the forum is for, eh?
Hi David ,
I realize this is a lttle of the thread but how dose one hide the tempo changes
I like to use this on the expressions but without the obvious extra tempo staff
being noticable when submitting a project.
Timoteus B.
Just highlight any element of the score (tempo mark, note, bar line, text entry - whatever) and press Control and E at the same time. Then select Visibility = Never.
I don't recall if it works in version 1, but if not, I'd be surprised.