1 e + a (16th notes)

1 tri plet (8th notes triplets)

assuming i want to keep the e (from 1 e + a) and the plet (from 1 tri plet)from the above (combining them together) - so basically (e plet)

What is the distance between the e (in 1 e + a) and the plet in 1 (tri plet) in terms of 1/24 or 1/16 notes or whatever is needed to give the answer

Thanks

 

You need to be a bit clearer what you want, I'm not entirely sure how you count notes here, and which notes you mean.

So you have got a 16th rhythm = "one e and a", and a triplet 8th "one e a" on top of each other and you want the distance of 16th "e" and triplet "e"? The distance for that is five 256th notes. Or one 32th triplet note.

Something like this measured in musical note durations is absurd in my opinion, if you need calculations like this perhaps use midi pulses which are way easier for this. Start from 24 pulses (or ticks) per quarter note, which is the MIDI standard is (24 PPQN), DAWs often use a multiple of this for more accurate timing (96 PPQN is fairly common, but you just multiply from 24PPQN).

In this case 24 PPQN yields 6 ticks per 16th note and 8 ticks per 8th triplet note, so the difference would be 2 ticks.

 

You use Reaper, last I recall seeing.. So you can easily enter these notes in like @xorome suggested and then see for yourself... But honestly I feel like you're way overthinking things.. Again.

If you're doing this for something like learning drums I know there's videos out there that tell you how to count out / keep time with a mix of triplets and straight beats (or other polyrhythms)

 

You are wishing to combine them I gather.

It is not so much about the distance though you are correct, it is mathematical or a DAW/Computer could never accurately quantize.

Any combination of rhythmic phrases that are different comes down to whether it sounds good when you do combine them.
On drums it is not unusual to have a triplet pattern on hi-hats and a 16th or 8th note pattern on the kick and snare. Sometimes more of a backbeat, slower groove though it can be done faster.

You can adjoin any combination of rhythmic structures - 7 over 3, some stemming from hemiolas e.g... 8 over 3 (4:3) so on and so forth in any time signature if this is what you hear.

Honestly, worry about whether it sounds good and works well as some have suggested is probably the best option and also look up books or videos that cover programming and understanding polyrhythmic structures, if the theroetical aspects are where you wish to go.

 

...what? Even a basic midi clock can do up to 64th triplets accurately. Most modern DAWs multiply that resolution, for instance Cakewalk, Cubase, and Logic have MIDI resolution 40 times than that (960 PPQN).

 

If you read it correctly you're arguing about something I already knew 40 years ago. What I said implies the mathematics can calculate division and considering you stated that as distance, a really good DAW can do 128th to a 256th of a beat which is called a demisemihemidemisemiquaver. Which Cubase and Logic could do more than 30 years ago. Sibelius and the now defunct Finale can too.

It isn't about distance in creating music it is about how good it sounds and a DAW calculates the division within a specific time signature whether it is 4/4, 11/32, 9/8, 3/2 or any time construct and bar division, not distance.

Don't confuse distance with time division. The distance between each note is part of the bar time division or polyrhythm if applied, and you can further divide between that distance if desired.

The only division it cannot do is divide by zero.

 

Last edited: Mar 3, 2025

I agree with "whatever sounds good is good" of course, there's no need to get into mathematics for that.

But you said it can't be represented, I said it can. And how notes are played or quantized, how rigid or how loose they are, what sort of feel it has or if some notes have been artificially nudged, what sort of polymeter, n-tuplet, either from live playing or euclidean sequencer, all of it can be represented.

But I'm not here for an argument, I'll bow out.

 

You misread it I am saying if it wasn't mathematical, the computer could not do it. There is no argument at all We are saying the same thing pretty much.