Hi Forum,

here's my take w/r to scales and user scales (which of course I also find a very desirable addition )

I would like if there will be the usual suspects that derive from the chromatic scale that we have (minor, major, pentatonic, etc. - such lists can be found in numerous places). Note entry should then be limited to a scale (also obvious). It becomes interesting when we come to transposing, possibly between scales.

So far so obvious.

I'd really like to see scales other then the ones being subsets of the chromatic scale, namely those that have more than 12 steps per octave (up to 53 seems to be what still does make sense musically). And there are scales that do not have an octave as part of them. Famous members of this family are Wendy Carlos alpha, beta and gamma scales.

The main difference between scales based on the chromatic scale and those with more steps per octave is exactly that: The number of equidistant steps per octave, i.e. the increment from note to note in cent differs between these scales. And that's exactly the same with Wendy Carlos's scales. They have a different number of cent per step.

Now for the graphical representation on screen of the more exotic scales:

The name of the scale should be shown in the right part of the window. That leaves 3 digits for the notes. The first digit would be the octave (0-A) and the next two digits the note number within the octave. For alpha/beta/gamma and similar scales the same pattern could be applied by defining a new octave starts, when a new note "passes" an octave.

Example:

In alpha note 15 is 30.5 cent below the octave and note 16 would be the first note of the next octave, e.g. both notes could be represented as 014 and 100 (note in the octave numbered zero

based) or 015 and 101 (note in the octave numbered one based).

While I'm at it and because it feels rather similar and related w/r to the result I also would like to see tunings as loadable properties. I think it is possible to have tunings by means of tables (correct?)

I would like to be able to create my own tunings, save them and of course load them into another project.

Tuning as of the above means offsets from chromatic tuning per note in cent (and millicent).

Thank you very much for reading thus far. I hope the above makes sense and is understandable. If in doubt please ask and I'm happy to elaborate.

Update:

Further thinking about this I realize scales do have an impact on chords. For scales that are reduced w/r to the chromatic scale this may or may not result in certain notes no longer part of a chord. For non chromatic scales chords may require a rework. And that kind of canonically leads to User Chords...

Update2:

I just learned that the NerdSEQ uses 12 bit DACs for the CV outputs (apparently a design decision made a long time ago). Unfortunately that reduces the NerdSEQ's usefulness for microtonal scales and tuning as well as exotic tunings (which of course don't even exist as of today). While that results in average tuning errors of about 3-4 cents (up to 7-8 cents in worst case), I still think that at least scales (even non chromatic and not octave bound ones) would be a valueable addition to the NerdSEQ.

Support for tunings seems to be a moot point though. I retract that feature request.

Kind regards,

Michael

here's my take w/r to scales and user scales (which of course I also find a very desirable addition )

I would like if there will be the usual suspects that derive from the chromatic scale that we have (minor, major, pentatonic, etc. - such lists can be found in numerous places). Note entry should then be limited to a scale (also obvious). It becomes interesting when we come to transposing, possibly between scales.

So far so obvious.

I'd really like to see scales other then the ones being subsets of the chromatic scale, namely those that have more than 12 steps per octave (up to 53 seems to be what still does make sense musically). And there are scales that do not have an octave as part of them. Famous members of this family are Wendy Carlos alpha, beta and gamma scales.

The main difference between scales based on the chromatic scale and those with more steps per octave is exactly that: The number of equidistant steps per octave, i.e. the increment from note to note in cent differs between these scales. And that's exactly the same with Wendy Carlos's scales. They have a different number of cent per step.

Now for the graphical representation on screen of the more exotic scales:

The name of the scale should be shown in the right part of the window. That leaves 3 digits for the notes. The first digit would be the octave (0-A) and the next two digits the note number within the octave. For alpha/beta/gamma and similar scales the same pattern could be applied by defining a new octave starts, when a new note "passes" an octave.

Example:

In alpha note 15 is 30.5 cent below the octave and note 16 would be the first note of the next octave, e.g. both notes could be represented as 014 and 100 (note in the octave numbered zero

based) or 015 and 101 (note in the octave numbered one based).

While I'm at it and because it feels rather similar and related w/r to the result I also would like to see tunings as loadable properties. I think it is possible to have tunings by means of tables (correct?)

I would like to be able to create my own tunings, save them and of course load them into another project.

Tuning as of the above means offsets from chromatic tuning per note in cent (and millicent).

Thank you very much for reading thus far. I hope the above makes sense and is understandable. If in doubt please ask and I'm happy to elaborate.

Update:

Further thinking about this I realize scales do have an impact on chords. For scales that are reduced w/r to the chromatic scale this may or may not result in certain notes no longer part of a chord. For non chromatic scales chords may require a rework. And that kind of canonically leads to User Chords...

Update2:

I just learned that the NerdSEQ uses 12 bit DACs for the CV outputs (apparently a design decision made a long time ago). Unfortunately that reduces the NerdSEQ's usefulness for microtonal scales and tuning as well as exotic tunings (which of course don't even exist as of today). While that results in average tuning errors of about 3-4 cents (up to 7-8 cents in worst case), I still think that at least scales (even non chromatic and not octave bound ones) would be a valueable addition to the NerdSEQ.

Support for tunings seems to be a moot point though. I retract that feature request.

Kind regards,

Michael