[chuck-users] timing without audio?

Stefan Blixt stefan.blixt at gmail.com
Thu Oct 30 11:48:57 EDT 2014


If you have ever tried implementing some kind of stable timing in
programming languages like Java, you may have gotten a feel for the kind of
black magic that is needed to get that sort of thing to work. The clocks in
a computer that don't deal with audio are either too imprecise for music
purposes, or hidden inside hardware that is keen to keep its clock private
so it will work properly.

One of the great features of ChucK is that it hardwires its timing system
to the audio interface clock, making it as stable as possible. It's
probably too much work and out-of-scope to implement timing without
available audio hardware in ChucK.

/Stefan


On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Forrest Curo <treegestalt at gmail.com> wrote:

> Umm, if I left audio 'on' but simply didn't generate any of it through
> Chuck?
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Ryan Supak <ryansupak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There you have it. :) Would love a flag or option that doesn't force me
>> to have a sound card to get accurate timing though.
>>
>> rs
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 30, 2014, Robert Poor <rdpoor at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Recently, i found that I have to turn audio on, otherwise the timing
>>> runs way too fast.
>>>
>>> That's a feature, not a bug! :)  What's going on is that ChucK uses
>>> the DAC's clock for timing.  When you run without audio, ChucK simply
>>> runs as fast as possible, which is great, for example, when you're
>>> writing complex audio to a sound file.
>>>
>>> - Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Ryan Supak <ryansupak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Recently, i found that I have to turn audio on, otherwise the timing
>>> runs
>>> > way too fast. (Only an issue, I guess, if you're needing it to be
>>> accurate
>>> > and not just fast.)
>>> >
>>> > rs
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thursday, October 30, 2014, Forrest Curo <treegestalt at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> As I understand it, you send some number to 'now'
>>> >> and for that length of time the confuser will continue to run whatever
>>> >> oscillator instances you've started, then go on through your code.
>>> >>
>>> >> So if you only used it to generate values to trigger voices and
>>> changes in
>>> >> other software, you could run Chuck without much overhead?
>>> >>
>>> >> Is this right, and how can I minimize that overhead?
>>> >>
>>> >> [Forrest Curo
>>> >> San Diego]
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > chuck-users mailing list
>>> > chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>>> > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> chuck-users mailing list
>>> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>>> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> chuck-users mailing list
>> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>
>


-- 
Release me, insect, or I will destroy the Cosmos!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20141030/96c5fd5a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the chuck-users mailing list