[chuck-users] Electronic ChucK

Peter Todd chuck at xinaesthetic.net
Thu Oct 2 15:54:17 EDT 2008

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.


On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:50 PM, <inventor-66 at 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 at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20081002/8fcbd47c/attachment.htm>

More information about the chuck-users mailing list