<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/15/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">dan trueman</b> <<a href="mailto:dtrueman@princeton.edu">dtrueman@princeton.edu</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
hi Kas, wow i never thought LiSa would ever be used to approximate<br>convolution; cool!</blockquote><div><br><br>Approximate? I thought that my outlined method came down to actual convolution but it's entirely possible that I grossly misunderstand what's involved; this happens to me a lot but often it's possible to mask this by claiming my misunderstanding was actually a completely new idea :¬).
<br><br>Actually I've been thinking about ChucKian convolution on and off since I started ChucKing since as I see convolution it deals with spectral characteristics following from timed information so in a way it fits. It's just that convolution is notoriously CPU heavy and ChucK is not so famous brute efficiency (at least not with the CPU's time, it is with mine) so I never got round to actually coding it up.
<br></div><br>More generally I think LiSa might be good for many, many unexpected things because it's quite general and open to interpertation so that's good.<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
that's a very easy addition and i can see how it might be generally<br>useful; will definitely add.</blockquote><div><br>Wonderfull! Many thanks for your quick responce.<br><br>Yours,<br>Kas.<br> </div><br></div>