You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Just let me know if I'm thinking wrong or why 128 may be the better choice here! :-)
Anyway, thank you very much for your great work in providing all these reference implementations!!!! 🎉
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Dear Fabian,
Good observation. Dividing by 128 indeed yields values between 0 and 127/128. Besides looking more natural than dividing by 127, there is no deeper reason. So, you are right!
Ok, thanks for your clarification :-)
However, when I'm thinking further about it, this minor issue shouldn't yield severe problems when using the /128 version for any experimental data and tasks.
Thx!
Hey there!
I just stumbled over following line from$[0,1]$ :
c1/c1s2_symbolic_rep.py
, where midi velocity in bytes is normalized toShouldn't it be$[0,127]$ , so that 0 maps to 0 and 127 maps to 1.0?
vel/127.0
, because midi velocity is inQuick link to the line of code I am referring to:
https://github.com/meinardmueller/libfmp/blob/424127f2cd8317f796ab1591f7c0ec408208e782/libfmp/c1/c1s2_symbolic_rep.py#L70C44-L70C44
Just let me know if I'm thinking wrong or why 128 may be the better choice here! :-)
Anyway, thank you very much for your great work in providing all these reference implementations!!!! 🎉
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: