<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 6.00.6001.17184">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>>BTW, I'm rather surprised that this technique was used in a guitar amp;
I thought the sweetspot was relatively small? Wouldn't that be unpractical for
guitar amps?<BR><FONT size=2 face=Arial>No, this was a consumer stereo (hi-fi)
amp made in the '70s. I think the designers (and companies) name was
Carver (George Carver) or some such.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>So I take it that 100 us</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>is 100 microseconds (the suggested delay for
speakers placed 3 meters apart)? Sampling rate is aprox. 40k so 1 sample every
250 microseconds? So from what your saying, this means you'd need to
interpelate 250 times per sample? Now that I think about it (outch this
math stuff makes my brain hurt), what does it even mean to hae a delay smaller
than the time between samples?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>-- Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=signal.automatique@gmail.com
href="mailto:signal.automatique@gmail.com">Kassen</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
href="mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu">ChucK Users Mailing List</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 29, 2008 12:56
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [chuck-users] Interesting
stereo widening effect</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>2008/5/29 Rich Caloggero <<A
href="mailto:rjc@mit.edu">rjc@mit.edu</A>>:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"
class=gmail_quote>Wow, very cool. Will chuck do delays that short? I assume
it probably has<BR>more to do with the speed of the hardware than anything
inherent about<BR>chuck?</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I think it will, delay lines need not
be a integer multiple of 1::samp either, at least not for a interpolating
delay (which we have).<BR><BR>I'm not 100% sure what will happen if the delay
length becomes less then a samp and you still want to use feedback. Feedback
loops in ChucK Ugens will always add a single sample delay. You may have to
fake this be putting a few delays in series.<BR></DIV><BR>Delaylines aren't
especially hard on the CPU, the main cost is probably the interpolation but I
can't imagine why that would take more for extremely short delays. It'd be a
different issue if you wanted delaylines considderably shorter then a samp
with feedback in one Ugen. Clearly that would create a need to interpolate
multiple times per sample and place some rather large demands on the
quality of the interpolation.<BR><BR>BTW, I'm rather surprised that this
technique was used in a guitar amp; I thought the sweetspot was relatively
small? Wouldn't that be unpractical for guitar amps?<BR><BR>Yours,<BR>Kas.<BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>chuck-users mailing
list<BR>chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu<BR>https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>