(02-26-2019, 01:04 PM)Swimming Saucer Wrote: 1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_10
l . l . l
l . l . 10000 notes in 4 measures
l . l
l . 2000 notes in 4 measures
l
20 notes in 4 measures
Although I'd much rather have a quantitative scale that lets us find exact points on where we can fit on the scale, I guess I'll have to work with this. Now that I've gotten a chance to see just how it was formatted (as, at least to me anyway, it shows up a bit out of wack on your forum post), I'll assume that from the 1 to 5 (20 notes in 4 measures to 2000 notes in 4 measures) it is a logarithmic scale, due to the seemingly exponential growth as 20*100=2000.
In other words, on the 1-5 part of the scale, I'll assume that we can approximate the point on it from using the formula 2*log10(x/2)-1, where x is the # of notes in 4 measures. I put the "/2" because 2 and 2000 are both 2 multiplied by a power of 10, and using numbers on the endpoints where one can be raised to an exponent to find the other makes things a lot simpler. The logarithm itself is multiplied by 2 and then 1 is subtracted from it in order to expand out the logarithmic formula so that the endpoints of 20 and 2000 actually output 1 and 5.
It seems that recently, for me, my sequences have had roughly 200 notes on average per adjusted measure (Adjusted measures because in many of my sequences I doubled the tempo and stretched out the notes, keeping the same feel as if I hadn't. Not doing this would cause many sequences to appear less dense than what they actually are.), which meant that there are roughly 800 notes on average every 4 adjusted measures.
Putting this into the formula produces the result of roughly 4.2 for me. If anyone else wants to use this formula, be my guest! I've always been intrigued with sequence densities and it would put people on a common scale.
Oh yeah! You also want my densest sequence. Mine is my Field of Hopes and Dreams remix, at roughly 422.39 notes per adjusted measure. Enjoy!
##1002413
-
x1
-
-
x1
- Jonah
-