Thank you all for the info on the encoders, I think I am going to Behringer first to see if they have replacements and go from there.
�
However, i think you guys are off track on the pulses per revolution and I am tending to think the 24 or lower number is correct.� As a hardware and software designer, I would not let the pulse per revolution determine the number of items I would scroll through, only at the slow one click at a time pace.� I would calculate the time between pulses to determine how many numbers to scroll through, that is, the faster the user is turning the knob, the faster the scrolling data/value will increment or decrement. This makes the pulses per revolution only important as a scaling factor for the scroll rate calculation....
�
Bob S.
El Segumdo, CA
�
�
-----Original Message-----
From: Tero Mäyränen
Sent: Apr 2, 2012 4:53 AM
To: bc2000@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bc2000] Re: -- encoders type ? --
�Thanks, that's me, joined the group!
Yeah, 24 vs. 96 could be bad... Could be usable, if you use it for a
parameter that only needs small adjustments? :-)
Anyway, I thought all encoders worked the same way, but from the links
here it seems that's not the case.
--
tero
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Martin Ator <cyllall@...> wrote:
> Hello,
> �������� Yes it should work, but you would have to turn the encoder 5 or 6 times with a more common 24 pulse per revolution encoder, or change the resolution of the software?
>
> There is many a Tero in Finland. Do you have a Roland CMU-800?
>
> I built the Apple II interface for mine. The C64 was too complicated for my small brain but I may try again soon. My knowledge of logic is slowly improving. If it was you who originally tried to help me, then thanks.
> There's a CMU Yahoo group if you want to search for it.