signal.automatique at gmail.com
Fri Nov 19 14:35:39 EST 2010
> This is why I wish ChucK either had an Array UGen or if normal ChucK
> arrays could be treated like UGens somehow. Coming from other
> languages (Pd, Csound for example) one becomes very used to arrays (or
> ftables) being part of the signal chain. Using LiSa as a workaround
> is pretty rad.
I think we could say that we *do* have arrays as UGens, if we would want to
argue that. Both SndBuf and LiSa are really just arrays as UGens... What we
lack is arrays as UGens for control data and for audio treatment.
This may have to do with other languages having a "K-rate" and often even
UGens at that rate. Arguably we have the best implementation of control-rate
around, it's so good that we could port any and all of those things to ChucK
code. It might be because of that that we lack such UGens, this is a good
trade from one point of view but clearly it's often not convenient.
The GenX UGens go in this direction but they aren't that great for
waveshaping and not for treatments like this one.
> The ChucK wish-list keeps growing.
It does. "Borrowing" ftable doesn't seem like a half bad idea and
bit-crushing is so popular in modern music as well as useful in explaining
the limits of digital sound that I could see a use for a specialised UGen
for that as well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chuck-users