Page 1 of 1
Recording without Quantization
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 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: Sat Nov 12, 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: Sun Nov 13, 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: Sun Nov 13, 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: Sun Nov 13, 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: Mon Nov 14, 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 :)