Octave numbering

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, q,

Hey, Matt,

Is there no "note pitch inspector" in Encore/Mac (what we have in Encore/Windows by right-clicking on a note in the score)?

"Polarbreeze" reports that he is unable to find that feature in his Mac version.

Oddly enough: command-shift-click on a note.

Thank you so much.

Doug

[anaigeon]

I think it makes way more sense to remove that nomenclature from Encore entirely. Encore does not need it at all - even now, it's only used in a couple of obscure instances

You're perhaps going a little too far, I find convenient, sometimes, to have the pitch displayed when the mouse comes over a note.
Encore first target is musicians, and their language is made of notes - MIDI number is not of great use to a musician.

[q]

Oops!

I was speaking of the Mac note VELOCITY inspector. I don't have time to review this thread, but I think my comment is off topic. Apologies if this caused any confusion.

q

Hey, Matt,

Is there no "note pitch inspector" in Encore/Mac (what we have in Encore/Windows by right-clicking on a note in the score)?

"Polarbreeze" reports that he is unable to find that feature in his Mac version.

Oddly enough (on the Mac): command-shift-click on a note.

I suggested right-click for the Mac's "note pitch inspector", and re-suggested that when I heard that windows uses that command. But rather than press the point, I thought, "Hopefully we'll have a more extensive contextual menu for notes and selections anyway."

q

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, q,

Oops!

I was speaking of the Mac note VELOCITY inspector. I don't have time to review this thread, but I think my comment is off topic. Apologies if this caused any confusion.

There's a lot of that going around!

Thanks anyway.

Do you know about any note pitch inspector in Encore/Mac?

Best regards,

Doug

[polarbreeze]

I think it makes way more sense to remove that nomenclature from Encore entirely. Encore does not need it at all - even now, it's only used in a couple of obscure instances

You're perhaps going a little too far, I find convenient, sometimes, to have the pitch displayed when the mouse comes over a note.

That's a very good idea - mousing over a note giving a "tooltip" with the note name and, maybe, velocity too? (But you'd have to be able to switch it on and off very easily because it would quickly become annoying otherwise). Alternatively it could be invoked with a right-click rather than a mouseover.

I have no objection to showing the note name, in fact that would be great. But where the problem lies is in the octave numbering, which is not standardized and so creates confusion when used. I think it's unnecessary to specify the octave so I think it's best not to show it.

[polarbreeze]

Just a reminder that the octave numbering convention use in Encore when displaying note pitches (and for related purposes) is not one that is universally recognized...

Back to the original topic, having wandered a bit for a while: the core issue is that there is no standard in this case.

The notation used by keyboard makers to identify the physical note/octave numbers on their keyboards (eg “A4”) happens to use a form similar to “scientific pitch notation” but it is a different concept and the two should not be confused. Scientific pitch notation specifies frequencies, whereas keyboard makers’ note/octave numbers specify keys on the physical keyboard. The physical keyboard octave notation is also not standardized among manufacturers and may even vary between models from the same manufacturer. Thus, if a particular instrument designates its physical key Middle C as “C3”, hitting that key will produce the pitch “C4” (in SPN) and if the instrument is set to transpose up a major third, that same key will produce the SPN pitch “E4”. Note that this observation is independent of MIDI and is independent of Encore.

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, p,

Just a reminder that the octave numbering convention use in Encore when displaying note pitches (and for related purposes) is not one that is universally recognized...

Back to the original topic, having wandered a bit for a while: the core issue is that there is no standard in this case.

There is in fact an international standard (formerly an American standard). (You will have to excuse me if I want to use the word standard in a formal sense.) There is certainly not uniformity of practice.

The notation used by keyboard makers to identify the physical octave numbers on their keyboards (eg “A4”) happens to use a form similar to “scientific pitch notation” but it is a different concept and the two should not be confused. Scientific pitch notation specifies frequencies, whereas keyboard makers’ octave numbers specify keys on the physical keyboard.

I believe the intent, setting aside the matter of transposition done by the keyboard, is to identify the keys in terms of note pitches (normally) associated with those keys.

The physical keyboard octave notation is also not standardized among manufacturers and may even vary between models from the same manufacturer.

Indeed, but this is the same variation in convention we find in designating note octaves where no physical keyboard is involved - it is not a creature of the keyboard business, but rather just another manifestation of the same inconsistency we encounter in designating note pitches.

Thus, if a particular instrument designates its physical key Middle C as “C3”, hitting that key will produce the pitch “C4” (in SPN) and if the instrument is set to transpose up a major third, that same key will produce the SPN pitch “E4”. Note that this observation is independent of MIDI and is independent of Encore.

Well said.

Doug
"l'étandard sanglant est levée"
"The bloody standard is raised"
- la Marseillaise

[Doug Kerr]

p,

With regard to the international standard, I don't (think I) have it, and I'm not sure of its designation.

I do recall from the last time I looked at it (someplace) that as to the matter of the octave convention (middle C=C4), it is not normative (meaning that the standard does not actually prescribe that). Rather, the standard just utilizes it in its tables of frequencies for the various note pitches.

We have a lot of this in standards, where they use some convention without making clear where it's origin is (in this case, lilkely the "scientific" convention for musical pitches).

There is a similar case in the area of photographic photometry (involving exposure metering and the like), where a certain relationship is presumed by several interrelated standards, and in fact is used to tie them together, without it being prescribed by any of them (or by any other standard).

Doug

[polarbreeze]

Hi, p,

Just a reminder that the octave numbering convention use in Encore when displaying note pitches (and for related purposes) is not one that is universally recognized...

Back to the original topic, having wandered a bit for a while: the core issue is that there is no standard in this case.

There is in fact an international standard (formerly an American standard). (You will have to excuse me if I want to use the word standard in a formal sense.) There is certainly not uniformity of practice.

I do not believe there is any standard (in the formal sense) for the designation of the physical keys on the keyboard - at least I have never seen one. But if there is I'd like to educate myself on it...

[q]

pI do recall from the last time I looked at it (someplace) that as to the matter of the octave convention (middle C=C4), it is not normative (meaning that the standard does not actually prescribe that). Rather, the standard just utilizes it in its tables of frequencies for the various note pitches.

We have a lot of this in standards, where they use some convention without making clear where it's origin is (in this case, lilkely the "scientific" convention for musical pitches).

That's the beauty of standards: there are so many to choose from.

q

[Doug Kerr]

I do not believe there is any standard (in the formal sense) for the designation of the physical keys on the keyboard - at least I have never seen one. But if there is I'd like to educate myself on it...

I certainly have never intimated that there is any standard prescribing the identification or designation of keys on a keyboard. I highly doubt that there is any such thing. What I have spoken of pertains to note pitches.

Nothing I have said in this whole matter relates to keys or keyboards.

Doug

[Doug Kerr]

That's the beauty of standards: there are so many to choose from.

Yes, there are those for fire nozzle threads, and those for coded character sets, and those for keyboard arrangements (I myself have never written one for fire nozzle threads).

Doug

[vicorgan]

Too bad we can't all get our acts together and use the numberings that have been standard among organ builders and organists for hundreds of years.

This system calls middle C #25. Tenor C is therefore #13. and so on up or down the scale, halving or doubling. #1 is the standard low C of most keyboards (pianos excluded)

#01 indicates the C of the 16' ( again organ nomenclature )

To be scientifically correct what everyone is screaming about (C3) is 261.62 Hz. About the lowest pitch the human ear can differentiate is #001 at 16.35 Hz, which comes from a 32' long pipe (or stopped 16')

There are some organs which go down into the 64' octave ( C 000, 8.6 Hz which can only be felt in the pit of your stomach or the rumble of the floor.

There is one organ in Germany which has as its lowest note 4.3 Hz. 128' and the stop is marked DANGER!

If you are interested in these acoustic matters, there are several youtube videos of these low notes.

Maybe I digressed from the topic, but it would save a lot of confusion if the organbuilder's scale were used.

Vic Searle in Tokyo

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Vic,

Very interesting.

This system calls middle C #25. Tenor C is therefore #13. and so on up or down the scale, halving or doubling. #1 is the standard low C of most keyboards (pianos excluded)

There are some organs which go down into the 64' octave ( C 000, 8.6 Hz which can only be felt in the pit of your stomach or the rumble of the floor.

Would that be #0001?

I've seen that note called "CCCCCC" or "C ' ' ' ' ".

Would a half tone below be #000012? Or #00012?

There is one organ in Germany which has as its lowest note 4.3 Hz. 128' and the stop is marked DANGER!

I can well imagine!

Would that note be #00001?

Thanks for your interesting input.

Doug

[polarbreeze]

I certainly have never intimated that there is any standard prescribing the identification or designation of keys on a keyboard.

I don't think there's much to do about it then. As you say, there is no actual standard for note numbers (as distinct from pitch numbers). Encore has chosen to use the note numbering method adopted by Yamaha (and presumably others). However, it will be mismatched with Roland (and others). It's a conundrum faced by the industry in general and Encore can't really presume to solve it. However it can, as I suggested, avoid the problem by not using that ambiguous notation at all.