[chuck-users] timing without audio?

[Ryan Supak]

Stefan: kinda what I figured at any rate (lol). Turning on the soundcard
worked fine for me in the end.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Stefan Blixt <stefan.blixt at gmail.com>
wrote:

> If you have ever tried implementing some kind of stable timing in
> programming languages like Java, you may have gotten a feel for the kind of
> black magic that is needed to get that sort of thing to work. The clocks in
> a computer that don't deal with audio are either too imprecise for music
> purposes, or hidden inside hardware that is keen to keep its clock private
> so it will work properly.
>
> One of the great features of ChucK is that it hardwires its timing system
> to the audio interface clock, making it as stable as possible. It's
> probably too much work and out-of-scope to implement timing without
> available audio hardware in ChucK.
>
> /Stefan
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Forrest Curo <treegestalt at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Umm, if I left audio 'on' but simply didn't generate any of it through
>> Chuck?
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Ryan Supak <ryansupak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There you have it. :) Would love a flag or option that doesn't force me
>>> to have a sound card to get accurate timing though.
>>>
>>> rs
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 30, 2014, Robert Poor <rdpoor at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Recently, i found that I have to turn audio on, otherwise the timing
>>>> runs way too fast.
>>>>
>>>> That's a feature, not a bug! :)  What's going on is that ChucK uses
>>>> the DAC's clock for timing.  When you run without audio, ChucK simply
>>>> runs as fast as possible, which is great, for example, when you're
>>>> writing complex audio to a sound file.
>>>>
>>>> - Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Ryan Supak <ryansupak at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Recently, i found that I have to turn audio on, otherwise the timing
>>>> runs
>>>> > way too fast. (Only an issue, I guess, if you're needing it to be
>>>> accurate
>>>> > and not just fast.)
>>>> >
>>>> > rs
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thursday, October 30, 2014, Forrest Curo <treegestalt at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As I understand it, you send some number to 'now'
>>>> >> and for that length of time the confuser will continue to run
>>>> whatever
>>>> >> oscillator instances you've started, then go on through your code.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> So if you only used it to generate values to trigger voices and
>>>> changes in
>>>> >> other software, you could run Chuck without much overhead?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Is this right, and how can I minimize that overhead?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> [Forrest Curo
>>>> >> San Diego]
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > chuck-users mailing list
>>>> > chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>>>> > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>>>> >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> chuck-users mailing list
>>>> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>>>> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> chuck-users mailing list
>>> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>>> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> chuck-users mailing list
>> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Release me, insect, or I will destroy the Cosmos!
>
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20141030/648fc1cc/attachment.html>