This is a very interesting discussion. I'd be interested to see the schematic diagrams purely for the purposes of learning more about how you might perform audio synthesis in hardware. Rob On 3/10/2008, at 7:50 AM, 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.

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

Hmm, so you mentioned using PICs to program UGens... to me, it seems wasteful to pass analog audio between a graph of PIC + ADC/DAC's, why not pass digital audio between multiple PIC units? A digital modular synthesizer of sorts. A simplified SPDIF or I2S might do the trick for shuttling samples around. There could be designs for ADC/DAC units, and also USB Audio-class units for I/O to conventional computers. It seems interference/parasitic issues might be more problematic for a digital signal on unshielded cabling, but I can't claim to be an expert on any of this. One also loses analog cred in this way, but it would definitely keep costs down, and permit easy on the fly reprogrammability. spencer On Oct 2, 2008, at 11:50 AM, 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.

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