Page 1 of 1

Recording without Quantization

Posted: November 12th, 2016, 9:37 pm
by Ludus
Is it possible to record midi keyboard inputs without have the notes automatically quantized? I enjoy playing in a very free manner, but it seems like whenever I record my performances it automatically snaps the notes into a strict beat, often messing up the rhythm. Is there a way to disable this?

Re: Recording without Quantization

Posted: November 12th, 2016, 10:35 pm
by Gps
Set Quantization in piano roll to 1/192. That's not really random, but I doubt anybody can hear the difference.

( I assume changing that setting changes the snap, I am not 100% sure. If I remember right, I have been playing with it )

Re: Recording without Quantization

Posted: November 13th, 2016, 9:46 am
by musikbear
Ludus wrote:Is it possible
Yes exactly as GPS says :)
Besides that, since you are new in our forum;
Welcome to the forum Ludus! Here are all our important links:
http://lmms.io/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4740
And a few rules for Avatars, signatures, posting and using the right sub-forum :)

Re: Recording without Quantization

Posted: November 13th, 2016, 1:28 pm
by caLRo
If LMMS does not have a finer setting than 1/192, would it be better to rename 1/192 to "no quantization"? "No quantization" may not be technically accurate, but it gives a better indication of LMMS' limits, so users don't waste time looking for something that doesn't exist.

Re: Recording without Quantization

Posted: November 13th, 2016, 5:25 pm
by Snarf
caLRo wrote:If LMMS does not have a finer setting than 1/192, would it be better to rename 1/192 to "no quantization"? "No quantization" may not be technically accurate, but it gives a better indication of LMMS' limits, so users don't waste time looking for something that doesn't exist.
I agree. And nobody really needs exact quantization down to that level anyways.

Re: Recording without Quantization

Posted: November 14th, 2016, 10:56 am
by musikbear
caLRo wrote:If LMMS does not have a finer setting than 1/192, would it be better to rename 1/192 to "no quantization"
I can follow you a bit of the way, yes 1/192 is functionally 'no Q', but only functionally. If it should be renamed, then code is needed to actually make it really noQ, and not 'just' functionally noQ. I see no reason for having code rewrites, at least natm. where so many other things need to be managed :)