Question about Gain and instantiating objects
Hello All, I have created an object that basically is a simple sine wave grain to be used to create a "cloud" of sound. What I would like to do is to instatiate MANY of these objects, each of which would "exist" for maybe 10 milliseconds, or thereabouts. I was hoping to do this, as I am not really sure exactly how many instances will be needed at a given time. So, I got the object created (in the file 'sinegrain.ck'), and I call its function, sporking it into its own thread. When I create a single object, everything seems to work fine, but when I do more than one, everything goes haywire. I have attached an archive with all the files I use, and you can run them with the following...
chuck sinegrain sgtest1 rec-auto chuck sinegrain sgtest2 rec-auto chuck sinegrain sgtest3 rec-auto chuck sinegrain sgtest4 rec-auto
Each of the test files (sgtest...) creates the number of objects that is indicated by the number in the file name. When you run this, you will need to hit control-c to stop everything. The object will produce a print out with the gain of each generator, and once it is finished, it will print "done". You can hit control-c after that... I did this in Pure Data, but I had to create it in such a way that there were already all the generators instantiated, so if there ever occured a moment where one more generator was needed that created, it would "steal" a generator. This occasionally produced some clicks in the resulting sound. Will I need to create an "array" of my objects, creating all the instances that I may need? Or should I be able to create an object, call its function, and call its function by sporking it, and then instatiate a new object using the same object reference? I hope this makes sense, I didn't get much sleep last night, and my brain hurts... Mike
On 13-Jan-06, at 11:33 AM, Mike McGonagle wrote:
chuck sinegrain sgtest1 rec-auto
I've found that recording things in chuck is quite expensive (computationally), so I would first try it without recording. And I certainly wouldn't have four different recordings going on at once; I've find some way to only have one thread recording everything.
I did this in Pure Data, but I had to create it in such a way that there were already all the generators instantiated, so if there ever occured a moment where one more generator was needed that created, it would "steal" a generator. This occasionally produced some clicks in the resulting sound.
I did a similar thing (in chuck) using fifteen generators. In my case I had new generators wait until one was free, instead of stealing it... but you can avoid the clicks if you can give the generator a few ms notice before stealing it. When you notify a generator, have it do a fade-out, then start the new info.
Will I need to create an "array" of my objects, creating all the instances that I may need? Or should I be able to create an object, call its function, and call its function by sporking it, and then instatiate a new object using the same object reference?
sporking is relatively expensive. When I tried to do my project (with 1.2.0.2, I believe), I ran out of CPU when I have five generators going. With an array of objects (using whatever I wanted up to the array size), I could do something like fifteen or eighteen generators. Since chuck is so new, it's not very optimized. Cheers, - Graham Percival
On 1/14/06, Graham Percival
On 13-Jan-06, at 11:33 AM, Mike McGonagle wrote:
chuck sinegrain sgtest1 rec-auto
I've found that recording things in chuck is quite expensive (computationally), so I would first try it without recording. And I certainly wouldn't have four different recordings going on at once; I've find some way to only have one thread recording everything.
While I am not really trying to get this to be a "real-time" program, everything seems to work as I expect when I changed from using an Object for this, and instead used a function, and "sporked" multiple instances of that function. I also tried doing this without recording, and the results sounded pretty much the same. I wonder if this has something to do with how Objects are implemented, but that is just a hunch... While I can understand why each of the Objects continued to generate a wave after it was supposed to be done, the gain issue still doesn't make any sense. I can upload the revised code that uses a function instead of an Object, if anyone is interested. Also, you mentioned something to the effect of "four different recordings going on at once". I know that I created four different threads (in one example) which "chuck" their output to the dac, but I assumed that the recording code takes its source from the dac, which I would assume would be a summed result from all the other objects sending their output to the dac. About the recording code from the ChucK examples, would I need to modify that code for it to write a stereo file? My code, when I listen to it directly, it is stereo, but the resulting audio file is only mono.
I did this in Pure Data, but I had to create it in such a way that there were already all the generators instantiated, so if there ever occured a moment where one more generator was needed that created, it would "steal" a generator. This occasionally produced some clicks in the resulting sound.
I did a similar thing (in chuck) using fifteen generators. In my case I had new generators wait until one was free, instead of stealing it... but you can avoid the clicks if you can give the generator a few ms notice before stealing it. When you notify a generator, have it do a fade-out, then start the new info.
And this seems to NOT be a problem when I spork a new function thread. As I pointed out earlier, I am not really concerned with it running in realtime, as I expect there to be hundreds of threads running at once (at least that is the extreme possibility). I also have several control threads that will be running (I think somewhere on the order of about 32-40 or so. These are used to control the parameters for masking objects, and for each mask, there will be at least 4 threads running.
Will I need to create an "array" of my objects, creating all the instances that I may need? Or should I be able to create an object, call its function, and call its function by sporking it, and then instatiate a new object using the same object reference?
sporking is relatively expensive. When I tried to do my project (with 1.2.0.2, I believe), I ran out of CPU when I have five generators going. With an array of objects (using whatever I wanted up to the array size), I could do something like fifteen or eighteen generators.
I am expecting to drop out of realtime on this, so this should not be a problem.
Since chuck is so new, it's not very optimized.
Yeah, I can tell that it is relatively new, at the same time, what is here is very impressive. I really like the idea of being able to "cascade" a bunch of functions together, it works really well for the masking code. I was working with these things in SAOL, and everything was kind off hard to follow after there were 4 or 5 functions that are used to modify parameters. It went from being... result = accum(offset(quantizer(mask(invert(sig_gen()))))); to... sig_gen() => invert.act => mask.act => quantizer.act => offset.act => accum.act => result; While there may be more characters that need to be typed, I think the maintainability of the "ChucK" code is far more understandable. Thanks, Mike McGonagle
Cheers, - Graham Percival
_______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
-- Help the Environment, Plant a Bush back in Texas!
participants (2)
-
Graham Percival -
Mike McGonagle