[chuck-users] other ways to live-code with time

Tom Lieber lieber at princeton.edu
Wed Apr 29 12:55:45 EDT 2009

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Kassen <signal.automatique at gmail.com> wrote:
> Another interesting contrast is how Impromptu uses plugins for the
> sound generation. I don't think that would be as satisfying to me as
> writing my own ways of creating sounds but it does make a lot of sense
> in a livecoding environment where the focus might be on the generation
> of music more than on the technique on a sonological level.

Not as satisfying? Well, you could always write the plugins too.

> Was that using a wireless network? I'm not sure how the jitter of a
> wireless network would affect the timeserver protocols NetClock needs
> to sync the computer clocks. There has been some talk about that on
> the NetClock list but I'm not sure any conclusions have been reached.
> I could ask if it's relevant to you.

Yeah, a wireless network. And for whatever reason (AirPort updates, OS
X updates, variation in laptop hardware), timing issues got worse from
the previous year. Actually, I don't know how this was solved in the
end, because I think things had improved by the end (or maybe we
stopped relying on the network so much and I didn't notice)...

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Daniel Trueman <dtrueman at princeton.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Tom Lieber wrote:
>> A lot
>> of rehearsal time in PLOrk this past semester was dedicated to
>> synchronizing the performers because we lacked good network
>> synchronization.
> i've come to view this as a feature, not a bug... ;--}

I chose my words carefully! There's no way I can view getting
everybody to practice being in sync as a bad thing, but having the
option of good network synchronization means we can make pieces where
players can give their full attention to something else, like making
patterns in beepsh.

Tom Lieber

More information about the chuck-users mailing list