Hi All,
I suspect the charm of this would be the roughness and unpredictability... the thing'll have a life of its own, with all sorts of emergent sonic qualities. Non-audiophile quality isn't a bug, it's a feature.
Not sure it's got all that much to do with chuck, and I very much doubt it'll make anyone rich... but all good fun.
Cheers,
peter
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:50 PM,
<inventor-66@comcast.net> wrote:
Kassen,
Your point is well taken. I guess I'm not concerned about the audiophile quality of this system at all. If it's going to be so inexpensive then it will probably be inaccurate as well, and I'm OK with that. It's not intended to produce perfectly orchestrated audio, but rather to do something fun and interesting.
Also, that 555 example was indeed for a variable frequency oscillator, more specifically a pulse position modulator from the data sheet. there is a CV input that stops the oscillator at ground and sets maximum frequency at Vcc. Though to get a 50% duty cycle one must add a flip-flop to the output.
I'm really just going for a cool toy that will make lights blink and go woo-woo when I put together a ring of oscillators, this does not have to be super precise. That and the limited types of modulation input kind of make for a departure from ChucK, however. But that's OK too. It can simply be ChucK-inspired not ChucK duplicated.