Re: [chuck-users] timing without audio?

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 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 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 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 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 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 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@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users

_______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users

_______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users

_______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@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@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users