Csound Csound-dev Csound-tekno Search About

[Csnd] Bug in score sorting w/legato

Date2010-07-17 20:31
Fromakjmicro@gmail.com
Subject[Csnd] Bug in score sorting w/legato
Hi all,

Greetings from the road between Lexington and Louisville KY. 

I found a bug yesterday in CVS version dated from the 14th. Score sorting fails with legato (negative p3).

I will send an example score and score.srt once I'm on my regular laptop (i.e. when I'm home)

Best,
AKJ
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Date2010-07-18 03:10
FromAaron Krister Johnson
Subject[Csnd] Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
Ok,

As promised, I'm going to illustrate the bug I found with a sample legato instrument score that uses the negative p3 trick to indicate a legato note which is to be tied to the next note event from the same instrument. Here's the input score:


t 0 120 
i201.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1 
i202.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1  1 .5 .6 8000
i10.0 1.5   -.5  0.66  261.62557  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2     -.5  0.66  391.26571  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2.5    .5  0.66  357.79083  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4     -.5  0.66  305.95299  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4.5   -.5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 5      .5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8

The results of the command 'scsort < legatotest.sco' are:

w 0 120
i 201.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1
i 202.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1 1 .5 .6 8000
i 10.0 1.500000 0.750000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 261.62557 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.500000 1.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 357.79083 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.000000 1.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 391.26571 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.000000 2.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 305.95299 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 5.000000 2.500000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.500000 2.250000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8

As you can see, the p2 (event onset) times are not correctly sorted in order, and the audible result is screwed up big time. For example the event that falls on 2.5 beats comes before the one on 2 beats....what's going on here? I don't know why, but this is only something I've noticed in the CVS version I compiled on the 14th of July.

Can anyone else confirm strange behavior with any legato instruments and score sorting?

Thanks,
AKJ

 
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:31 PM, <akjmicro@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Greetings from the road between Lexington and Louisville KY.

I found a bug yesterday in CVS version dated from the 14th. Score sorting fails with legato (negative p3).

I will send an example score and score.srt once I'm on my regular laptop (i.e. when I'm home)

Best,
AKJ
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry



--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org


Date2010-07-18 22:55
FromAaron Krister Johnson
Subject[Csnd] Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at sourceforge. I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed. Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work! One can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on developing legato instruments.

Best,
AKJ

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:
Ok,

As promised, I'm going to illustrate the bug I found with a sample legato instrument score that uses the negative p3 trick to indicate a legato note which is to be tied to the next note event from the same instrument. Here's the input score:


t 0 120 
i201.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1 
i202.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1  1 .5 .6 8000
i10.0 1.5   -.5  0.66  261.62557  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2     -.5  0.66  391.26571  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2.5    .5  0.66  357.79083  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4     -.5  0.66  305.95299  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4.5   -.5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 5      .5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8

The results of the command 'scsort < legatotest.sco' are:

w 0 120
i 201.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1
i 202.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1 1 .5 .6 8000
i 10.0 1.500000 0.750000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 261.62557 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.500000 1.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 357.79083 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.000000 1.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 391.26571 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.000000 2.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 305.95299 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 5.000000 2.500000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.500000 2.250000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8

As you can see, the p2 (event onset) times are not correctly sorted in order, and the audible result is screwed up big time. For example the event that falls on 2.5 beats comes before the one on 2 beats....what's going on here? I don't know why, but this is only something I've noticed in the CVS version I compiled on the 14th of July.

Can anyone else confirm strange behavior with any legato instruments and score sorting?

Thanks,
AKJ


 
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:31 PM, <akjmicro@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Greetings from the road between Lexington and Louisville KY.

I found a bug yesterday in CVS version dated from the 14th. Score sorting fails with legato (negative p3).

I will send an example score and score.srt once I'm on my regular laptop (i.e. when I'm home)

Best,
AKJ
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry






--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org


Date2010-07-18 23:02
FromVictor Lazzarini
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
Thanks for filing the bug, we'll look at it following your report.

Victor
On 18 Jul 2010, at 22:55, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at sourceforge. I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed. Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work! One can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on developing legato instruments.

Best,
AKJ

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:
Ok,

As promised, I'm going to illustrate the bug I found with a sample legato instrument score that uses the negative p3 trick to indicate a legato note which is to be tied to the next note event from the same instrument. Here's the input score:


t 0 120 
i201.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1 
i202.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1  1 .5 .6 8000
i10.0 1.5   -.5  0.66  261.62557  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2     -.5  0.66  391.26571  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2.5    .5  0.66  357.79083  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4     -.5  0.66  305.95299  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4.5   -.5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 5      .5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8

The results of the command 'scsort < legatotest.sco' are:

w 0 120
i 201.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1
i 202.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1 1 .5 .6 8000
i 10.0 1.500000 0.750000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 261.62557 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.500000 1.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 357.79083 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.000000 1.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 391.26571 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.000000 2.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 305.95299 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 5.000000 2.500000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.500000 2.250000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8

As you can see, the p2 (event onset) times are not correctly sorted in order, and the audible result is screwed up big time. For example the event that falls on 2.5 beats comes before the one on 2 beats....what's going on here? I don't know why, but this is only something I've noticed in the CVS version I compiled on the 14th of July.

Can anyone else confirm strange behavior with any legato instruments and score sorting?

Thanks,
AKJ


 
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:31 PM, <akjmicro@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Greetings from the road between Lexington and Louisville KY.

I found a bug yesterday in CVS version dated from the 14th. Score sorting fails with legato (negative p3).

I will send an example score and score.srt once I'm on my regular laptop (i.e. when I'm home)

Best,
AKJ
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry






--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org



Date2010-07-18 23:33
FromVictor Lazzarini
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
I'm not used to the output of scsort, so I'm not sure what to make of it, but removing the negative p3s does not seem to produce a too different output:

w 0 120
i 10.0 1.500000 0.750000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 261.62557 0.5 1 0.8
i 201.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1
i 202.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1 1 .5 .6 8000
i 10.0 2.500000 1.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 357.79083 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.500000 2.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.000000 1.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 391.26571 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.000000 2.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 305.95299 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 5.000000 2.500000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8



On 18 Jul 2010, at 22:55, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at sourceforge. I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed. Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work! One can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on developing legato instruments.

Best,
AKJ

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:
Ok,

As promised, I'm going to illustrate the bug I found with a sample legato instrument score that uses the negative p3 trick to indicate a legato note which is to be tied to the next note event from the same instrument. Here's the input score:


t 0 120 
i201.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1 
i202.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1  1 .5 .6 8000
i10.0 1.5   -.5  0.66  261.62557  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2     -.5  0.66  391.26571  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2.5    .5  0.66  357.79083  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4     -.5  0.66  305.95299  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4.5   -.5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 5      .5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8

The results of the command 'scsort < legatotest.sco' are:

w 0 120
i 201.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1
i 202.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1 1 .5 .6 8000
i 10.0 1.500000 0.750000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 261.62557 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.500000 1.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 357.79083 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.000000 1.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 391.26571 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.000000 2.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 305.95299 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 5.000000 2.500000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.500000 2.250000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8

As you can see, the p2 (event onset) times are not correctly sorted in order, and the audible result is screwed up big time. For example the event that falls on 2.5 beats comes before the one on 2 beats....what's going on here? I don't know why, but this is only something I've noticed in the CVS version I compiled on the 14th of July.

Can anyone else confirm strange behavior with any legato instruments and score sorting?

Thanks,
AKJ


 
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:31 PM, <akjmicro@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Greetings from the road between Lexington and Louisville KY.

I found a bug yesterday in CVS version dated from the 14th. Score sorting fails with legato (negative p3).

I will send an example score and score.srt once I'm on my regular laptop (i.e. when I'm home)

Best,
AKJ
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry






--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org



Date2010-07-18 23:44
FromVictor Lazzarini
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
I think this is a new bug in the CVS code as score sorting is screwed up significantly. See this simple CSD:

<CsoundSynthesizer>
<CsInstruments>

instr 10

print p2

endin
</CsInstruments>
<CsScore>
i10.0 1.5   .5 
i10.0 2     .5   
i10.0 2.5    .5  
i10.0 4     .5  
i10.0 4.5   .5  
i10.0 5      .5 

</CsScore>
</CsoundSynthesizer>

SECTION 1:
B  0.000 ..  1.500 T  1.500 TT  1.500 M:      0.0
new alloc for instr 10:
instr 10:  p2 = 1.500
B  1.500 ..  2.500 T  2.500 TT  2.500 M:      0.0
instr 10:  p2 = 2.500
B  2.500 ..  4.500 T  4.500 TT  4.500 M:      0.0
instr 10:  p2 = 4.500
new alloc for instr 10:
instr 10:  p2 = 2.000
instr 10:  p2 = 4.000
B  4.500 ..  5.000 T  5.000 TT  5.000 M:      0.0
instr 10:  p2 = 5.000
B  5.000 ..  5.500 T  5.500 TT  5.500 M:      0.0
Score finished in csoundPerform().

Nothing to do with negative p3, just plain wrong.

Victor

On 18 Jul 2010, at 23:33, Victor Lazzarini wrote:

I'm not used to the output of scsort, so I'm not sure what to make of it, but removing the negative p3s does not seem to produce a too different output:

w 0 120
i 10.0 1.500000 0.750000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 261.62557 0.5 1 0.8
i 201.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1
i 202.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1 1 .5 .6 8000
i 10.0 2.500000 1.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 357.79083 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.500000 2.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.000000 1.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 391.26571 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.000000 2.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 305.95299 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 5.000000 2.500000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8



On 18 Jul 2010, at 22:55, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at sourceforge. I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed. Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work! One can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on developing legato instruments.

Best,
AKJ

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:
Ok,

As promised, I'm going to illustrate the bug I found with a sample legato instrument score that uses the negative p3 trick to indicate a legato note which is to be tied to the next note event from the same instrument. Here's the input score:


t 0 120 
i201.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1 
i202.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1  1 .5 .6 8000
i10.0 1.5   -.5  0.66  261.62557  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2     -.5  0.66  391.26571  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2.5    .5  0.66  357.79083  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4     -.5  0.66  305.95299  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4.5   -.5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 5      .5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8

The results of the command 'scsort < legatotest.sco' are:

w 0 120
i 201.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1
i 202.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1 1 .5 .6 8000
i 10.0 1.500000 0.750000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 261.62557 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.500000 1.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 357.79083 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.000000 1.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 391.26571 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.000000 2.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 305.95299 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 5.000000 2.500000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.500000 2.250000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8

As you can see, the p2 (event onset) times are not correctly sorted in order, and the audible result is screwed up big time. For example the event that falls on 2.5 beats comes before the one on 2 beats....what's going on here? I don't know why, but this is only something I've noticed in the CVS version I compiled on the 14th of July.

Can anyone else confirm strange behavior with any legato instruments and score sorting?

Thanks,
AKJ


 
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:31 PM, <akjmicro@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Greetings from the road between Lexington and Louisville KY.

I found a bug yesterday in CVS version dated from the 14th. Score sorting fails with legato (negative p3).

I will send an example score and score.srt once I'm on my regular laptop (i.e. when I'm home)

Best,
AKJ
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry






--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org




Date2010-07-18 23:44
Fromakjmicro@gmail.com
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
Well, in any event, it seems to destroy the order of score event onsets, period. What's going on?

AKJ

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


From: Victor Lazzarini <Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:33:01 +0100
To: <csound@lists.bath.ac.uk>
ReplyTo: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato

I'm not used to the output of scsort, so I'm not sure what to make of it, but removing the negative p3s does not seem to produce a too different output:

w 0 120
i 10.0 1.500000 0.750000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 261.62557 0.5 1 0.8
i 201.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1
i 202.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1 1 .5 .6 8000
i 10.0 2.500000 1.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 357.79083 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.500000 2.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.000000 1.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 391.26571 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.000000 2.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 305.95299 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 5.000000 2.500000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8



On 18 Jul 2010, at 22:55, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at sourceforge. I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed. Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work! One can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on developing legato instruments.

Best,
AKJ

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:
Ok,

As promised, I'm going to illustrate the bug I found with a sample legato instrument score that uses the negative p3 trick to indicate a legato note which is to be tied to the next note event from the same instrument. Here's the input score:


t 0 120 
i201.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1 
i202.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1  1 .5 .6 8000
i10.0 1.5   -.5  0.66  261.62557  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2     -.5  0.66  391.26571  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2.5    .5  0.66  357.79083  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4     -.5  0.66  305.95299  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4.5   -.5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 5      .5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8

The results of the command 'scsort < legatotest.sco' are:

w 0 120
i 201.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1
i 202.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1 1 .5 .6 8000
i 10.0 1.500000 0.750000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 261.62557 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.500000 1.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 357.79083 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.000000 1.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 391.26571 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.000000 2.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 305.95299 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 5.000000 2.500000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.500000 2.250000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8

As you can see, the p2 (event onset) times are not correctly sorted in order, and the audible result is screwed up big time. For example the event that falls on 2.5 beats comes before the one on 2 beats....what's going on here? I don't know why, but this is only something I've noticed in the CVS version I compiled on the 14th of July.

Can anyone else confirm strange behavior with any legato instruments and score sorting?

Thanks,
AKJ


 
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:31 PM, <akjmicro@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Greetings from the road between Lexington and Louisville KY.

I found a bug yesterday in CVS version dated from the 14th. Score sorting fails with legato (negative p3).

I will send an example score and score.srt once I'm on my regular laptop (i.e. when I'm home)

Best,
AKJ
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry






--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org



Date2010-07-19 07:43
FromVictor Lazzarini
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
yes, as I said in my other e-mail, it's broken.

Victor
On 18 Jul 2010, at 23:44, akjmicro@gmail.com wrote:

Well, in any event, it seems to destroy the order of score event onsets, period. What's going on?

AKJ

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


From: Victor Lazzarini <Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:33:01 +0100
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato

I'm not used to the output of scsort, so I'm not sure what to make of it, but removing the negative p3s does not seem to produce a too different output:

w 0 120
i 10.0 1.500000 0.750000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 261.62557 0.5 1 0.8
i 201.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1
i 202.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1 1 .5 .6 8000
i 10.0 2.500000 1.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 357.79083 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.500000 2.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.000000 1.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 391.26571 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.000000 2.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 305.95299 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 5.000000 2.500000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8



On 18 Jul 2010, at 22:55, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at sourceforge. I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed. Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work! One can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on developing legato instruments.

Best,
AKJ

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:
Ok,

As promised, I'm going to illustrate the bug I found with a sample legato instrument score that uses the negative p3 trick to indicate a legato note which is to be tied to the next note event from the same instrument. Here's the input score:


t 0 120 
i201.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1 
i202.0 0.000 .5  0.66  1  0.5  1  1 .5 .6 8000
i10.0 1.5   -.5  0.66  261.62557  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2     -.5  0.66  391.26571  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 2.5    .5  0.66  357.79083  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4     -.5  0.66  305.95299  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 4.5   -.5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8
i10.0 5      .5  0.66  327.17991  0.5  1  0.8

The results of the command 'scsort < legatotest.sco' are:

w 0 120
i 201.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1
i 202.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 1 0.5 1 1 .5 .6 8000
i 10.0 1.500000 0.750000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 261.62557 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.500000 1.250000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 357.79083 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 2.000000 1.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 391.26571 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.000000 2.000000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 305.95299 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 5.000000 2.500000 0.500000 0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8
i 10.0 4.500000 2.250000 -0.500000 -0.250000 0.66 327.17991 0.5 1 0.8

As you can see, the p2 (event onset) times are not correctly sorted in order, and the audible result is screwed up big time. For example the event that falls on 2.5 beats comes before the one on 2 beats....what's going on here? I don't know why, but this is only something I've noticed in the CVS version I compiled on the 14th of July.

Can anyone else confirm strange behavior with any legato instruments and score sorting?

Thanks,
AKJ


 
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:31 PM, <akjmicro@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Greetings from the road between Lexington and Louisville KY.

I found a bug yesterday in CVS version dated from the 14th. Score sorting fails with legato (negative p3).

I will send an example score and score.srt once I'm on my regular laptop (i.e. when I'm home)

Best,
AKJ
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry






--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org




Date2010-07-19 09:49
Fromjpff@cs.bath.ac.uk
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
Fixed in CVS.  The mystery to me is how the previous sorting worked in thi
sarea as I did not find any reference to negative p3, a feature I have
never used

==John ff

> None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at
> sourceforge.
> I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed.
> Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work!
> One
> can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on
> developing legato instruments.
>
> Best,
> AKJ
>




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Date2010-07-19 13:59
FromAaron Krister Johnson
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
Thanks, John. I'm downloading and testing it now. If I find anymore problems, I'll give a holler.

AKJ

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:49 AM, <jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk> wrote:
Fixed in CVS.  The mystery to me is how the previous sorting worked in thi
sarea as I did not find any reference to negative p3, a feature I have
never used

==John ff

> None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at
> sourceforge.
> I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed.
> Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work!
> One
> can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on
> developing legato instruments.
>
> Best,
> AKJ
>




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"




--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org


Date2010-07-19 15:28
FromAaron Krister Johnson
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
Looks like it's working now. Thanks for the fix!

AKJ

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:
Thanks, John. I'm downloading and testing it now. If I find anymore problems, I'll give a holler.

AKJ


On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:49 AM, <jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk> wrote:
Fixed in CVS.  The mystery to me is how the previous sorting worked in thi
sarea as I did not find any reference to negative p3, a feature I have
never used

==John ff

> None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at
> sourceforge.
> I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed.
> Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work!
> One
> can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on
> developing legato instruments.
>
> Best,
> AKJ
>




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"




--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org




--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org


Date2010-07-19 15:30
FromAaron Krister Johnson
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
BTW, it is odd that this bug crept in...what was the last change in sorting code?

It's funny, b/c I assume, w/o rigorous testing, that it had to do with negative p3 use, but in fact it was just plain old broken sorting.....glad I caught it, glad it's fixed!

AKJ

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:49 AM, <jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk> wrote:
Fixed in CVS.  The mystery to me is how the previous sorting worked in thi
sarea as I did not find any reference to negative p3, a feature I have
never used

==John ff

> None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at
> sourceforge.
> I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed.
> Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work!
> One
> can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on
> developing legato instruments.
>
> Best,
> AKJ
>




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"




--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org


Date2010-07-19 15:46
FromVictor Lazzarini
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
There were some additions to the sorting that John did earlier last month. This is why we need testers and super-users like yourself. Thanks.

Victor
On 19 Jul 2010, at 15:30, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

BTW, it is odd that this bug crept in...what was the last change in sorting code?

It's funny, b/c I assume, w/o rigorous testing, that it had to do with negative p3 use, but in fact it was just plain old broken sorting.....glad I caught it, glad it's fixed!

AKJ

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:49 AM, <jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk> wrote:
Fixed in CVS.  The mystery to me is how the previous sorting worked in thi
sarea as I did not find any reference to negative p3, a feature I have
never used

==John ff

> None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at
> sourceforge.
> I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed.
> Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work!
> One
> can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on
> developing legato instruments.
>
> Best,
> AKJ
>




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"




--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org



Date2010-07-20 04:50
FromAaron Krister Johnson
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
Attachmentsweird11.sco  weird11.srt  
Hi all,

I'm sorry to report that the sorting bug still exists in CVS. Attached is a score file and the resulting .srt file for your perusal.

AKJ

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Victor Lazzarini <Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie> wrote:
There were some additions to the sorting that John did earlier last month. This is why we need testers and super-users like yourself. Thanks.

Victor

On 19 Jul 2010, at 15:30, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

BTW, it is odd that this bug crept in...what was the last change in sorting code?

It's funny, b/c I assume, w/o rigorous testing, that it had to do with negative p3 use, but in fact it was just plain old broken sorting.....glad I caught it, glad it's fixed!

AKJ

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:49 AM, <jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk> wrote:
Fixed in CVS.  The mystery to me is how the previous sorting worked in thi
sarea as I did not find any reference to negative p3, a feature I have
never used

==John ff

> None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at
> sourceforge.
> I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed.
> Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work!
> One
> can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on
> developing legato instruments.
>
> Best,
> AKJ
>




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"




--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org





--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org


Date2010-07-22 21:04
FromSteven Yi
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
Hi All,

Is this bug still happening?  I noticed the bug in the bug tracker was
closed as "fixed":

https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3031342&group_id=81968&atid=564599

Thanks!
steven

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm sorry to report that the sorting bug still exists in CVS. Attached is a
> score file and the resulting .srt file for your perusal.
>
> AKJ
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Victor Lazzarini 
> wrote:
>>
>> There were some additions to the sorting that John did earlier last month.
>> This is why we need testers and super-users like yourself. Thanks.
>> Victor
>> On 19 Jul 2010, at 15:30, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>>
>> BTW, it is odd that this bug crept in...what was the last change in
>> sorting code?
>>
>> It's funny, b/c I assume, w/o rigorous testing, that it had to do with
>> negative p3 use, but in fact it was just plain old broken sorting.....glad I
>> caught it, glad it's fixed!
>>
>> AKJ
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:49 AM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> Fixed in CVS.  The mystery to me is how the previous sorting worked in
>>> thi
>>> sarea as I did not find any reference to negative p3, a feature I have
>>> never used
>>>
>>> ==John ff
>>>
>>> > None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at
>>> > sourceforge.
>>> > I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed.
>>> > Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work!
>>> > One
>>> > can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on
>>> > developing legato instruments.
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > AKJ
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best,
>>
>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best,
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"


Date2010-07-23 01:06
FromAaron Krister Johnson
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato
Hi Steven,

Yes, as far as I know, it is still a bug. Should I repost it as a bug in the sourceforge interface, or is John ffitch listening? :)

Things are working in 5.12.1 as expected in my experience. The problem seems to be with code that has changed recently in CVS. Victor L. mentioned some work on sorting code was done recently, so it seems natural to assume that therein lies the culprit.

I would recommend anyone who doesn't want any headaches with unexplained behavior due to score sorting to avoid using CVS code until this is truly fixed!

AKJ

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Steven Yi <stevenyi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,

Is this bug still happening?  I noticed the bug in the bug tracker was
closed as "fixed":

https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3031342&group_id=81968&atid=564599

Thanks!
steven

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm sorry to report that the sorting bug still exists in CVS. Attached is a
> score file and the resulting .srt file for your perusal.
>
> AKJ
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Victor Lazzarini <Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie>
> wrote:
>>
>> There were some additions to the sorting that John did earlier last month.
>> This is why we need testers and super-users like yourself. Thanks.
>> Victor
>> On 19 Jul 2010, at 15:30, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>>
>> BTW, it is odd that this bug crept in...what was the last change in
>> sorting code?
>>
>> It's funny, b/c I assume, w/o rigorous testing, that it had to do with
>> negative p3 use, but in fact it was just plain old broken sorting.....glad I
>> caught it, glad it's fixed!
>>
>> AKJ
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:49 AM, <jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fixed in CVS.  The mystery to me is how the previous sorting worked in
>>> thi
>>> sarea as I did not find any reference to negative p3, a feature I have
>>> never used
>>>
>>> ==John ff
>>>
>>> > None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at
>>> > sourceforge.
>>> > I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed.
>>> > Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work!
>>> > One
>>> > can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on
>>> > developing legato instruments.
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > AKJ
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best,
>>
>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best,
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"




--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org


Date2010-07-23 01:08
FromAaron Krister Johnson
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bug in score sorting w/legato

I should note that I discovered it was still broken by trying it on a more complex score example, more true to life....I posted a few days ago an example score and sorted output which illustrated the problem.

AKJ

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:
Hi Steven,

Yes, as far as I know, it is still a bug. Should I repost it as a bug in the sourceforge interface, or is John ffitch listening? :)

Things are working in 5.12.1 as expected in my experience. The problem seems to be with code that has changed recently in CVS. Victor L. mentioned some work on sorting code was done recently, so it seems natural to assume that therein lies the culprit.

I would recommend anyone who doesn't want any headaches with unexplained behavior due to score sorting to avoid using CVS code until this is truly fixed!

AKJ


On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Steven Yi <stevenyi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,

Is this bug still happening?  I noticed the bug in the bug tracker was
closed as "fixed":

https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3031342&group_id=81968&atid=564599

Thanks!
steven

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm sorry to report that the sorting bug still exists in CVS. Attached is a
> score file and the resulting .srt file for your perusal.
>
> AKJ
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Victor Lazzarini <Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie>
> wrote:
>>
>> There were some additions to the sorting that John did earlier last month.
>> This is why we need testers and super-users like yourself. Thanks.
>> Victor
>> On 19 Jul 2010, at 15:30, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>>
>> BTW, it is odd that this bug crept in...what was the last change in
>> sorting code?
>>
>> It's funny, b/c I assume, w/o rigorous testing, that it had to do with
>> negative p3 use, but in fact it was just plain old broken sorting.....glad I
>> caught it, glad it's fixed!
>>
>> AKJ
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:49 AM, <jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fixed in CVS.  The mystery to me is how the previous sorting worked in
>>> thi
>>> sarea as I did not find any reference to negative p3, a feature I have
>>> never used
>>>
>>> ==John ff
>>>
>>> > None of the developers answered yet. I've filed a bug report at
>>> > sourceforge.
>>> > I'm hoping someone else can confirm this bug, and that it can be fixed.
>>> > Seems to be a glaring one, not having legato instruments that can work!
>>> > One
>>> > can easily test the procedure using Steven Yi's excellent tutorial on
>>> > developing legato instruments.
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > AKJ
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best,
>>
>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best,
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"




--



--
Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org