Hi David,
Now that is it in a formulated nut shell! That does make better sense
of various variables.
Thanks!
GrahamG
On 4/12/11, David Henningsson wrote:
> On 2011-04-12 12:44, Graham Goode wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> ["base reverb level" in soundfont + CC91] level does not make
>> mathematical
On 2011-04-12 12:44, Graham Goode wrote:
Hi David,
["base reverb level" in soundfont + CC91] level does not make
mathematical sense to me.
Base reverb level is given in % value, CC91 is 0-127. What is the conversion?
First, in the soundfont we have a reverb level at the instrument level,
whi
Hi David,
["base reverb level" in soundfont + CC91] level does not make
mathematical sense to me.
Base reverb level is given in % value, CC91 is 0-127. What is the conversion?
(CC91/127 * base level) would seem to give us the 20% added to make
the maximum of 40% in your example...
So would it b
On 2011-04-12 12:11, Bernd Casper wrote:
Hi David,
"(Hmm, this one didn't go to the list?)"
dunno why. I always press Reply.
"So if the base reverb level is 100% then CC91 level does not make a
difference as we cannot go above 100%."
That's the point. If I set the "base reverb level" in the sound
Hi David,
"(Hmm, this one didn't go to the list?)"
dunno why. I always press Reply.
"So if the base reverb level is 100% then CC91 level does not make a
difference as we cannot go above 100%."
That's the point. If I set the "base reverb level" in the soundfonts to 100%,
the FS reverb level sh
(Hmm, this one didn't go to the list?)
On 2011-04-11 10:31, Bernd Casper wrote:
Hi David,
and two another scenarios:
what sound result I can expect if
1) The reverb send midi message (CC91) is 127
2) The soundfont has a "default reverb level" at 0% ?
and
what sound result I can expect if
1) The
