[chuck-users] annoyances

Ge Wang ge at ccrma.Stanford.EDU
Wed Nov 3 15:18:40 EDT 2010

Hi Kassen!

I feel your pain!  We'll definitely get on it.  There are actually macro's 
throughout to combat floating point denormalization (for example, measures 
are taken in the general UGen architecture and also strategically added to 
all of STK in ChucK where there is feedback that could lead to 
denormalization), but perhaps they have not yet made their way into LiSa. 
Do you have a minimal example of the feedback loop that leads to 
floating-point denormalization?

ASIO is long due and I am sorry it's not part of the canonical ChucK 
release yet.  Spencer has actually been be gearing up for massive 
ChucK/miniAudicle development here at CCRMA.  We will priority boost ASIO 

Rock on,

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010, Kassen wrote:

> Fellow ChucKists,
> I'm rather displeased right now, which is a bit of a euphemism for "I feel
> like breaking stuff".
> I have a issue in my sequencer that I'm sure relates to floating-point
> denormalisation (involving a feedback loop on a LiSa) as I have CPU spikes
> that occur after a while and stay present after re-starting ChucK. These are
> quite hard to pinpoint as they take a while to surface. Even if I would find
> the culprit I'd then have to see whether it still exists in the current
> version of ChucK because I'm running into this on the latest ASIO version
> that we have around, which is downright out of date.
> All of this is very, very frustrating, frustrating to the tune of looking
> for what's wrong for three days on end. It's probably fixable but it's
> frustrating that there is no canonical ASIO version of ChucK and that there
> hasn't been more attention to floating-point denormalisation. One of the
> main advantages over SC is that we can do sample-accurate feedback in CK,
> yet we throw much of that away if we risk this. There is also no Windows
> version out of the box that can use multi-channel audio and have acceptable
> latency.
> Both seem quite serious to me. Could something be done about this? I've been
> thinking about how hard it would be to port my setup to a hardware PIC or
> even SC. None of this should be necessary at all; a out-of-the-box ASIO
> version is quite reasonable and  I believe that from the time
> denormalisation has been a issue there have been instructions to simply
> round to 0.
> Yours,
> Kas.

More information about the chuck-users mailing list