Stefan: kinda what I figured at any rate (lol). Turning on the soundcard worked fine for me in the end.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Stefan Blixt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 >>>> > [email protected] >>>> > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> chuck-users mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> chuck-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> chuck-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users >> >> > > > -- > Release me, insect, or I will destroy the Cosmos! > > _______________________________________________ > chuck-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users > >
_______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
