Hi, Henrik.
It could be due to some integer overflow in the ba.beat function; you could
try that in double precision to see if it works better.
Otherwise, here's another way that appears to be more robust:
import("stdfaust.lib");
imp = beat(en.ar(20,10,1) * 2000);
beat(t) = diff(os.phasor(1, t / 60.0)) < 0
with {
diff(x) = x <: _ - _';
};
env = en.ar(0.00001, 0.05, imp);
snare = no.noise * env * 0.1;
process = snare , snare;
Ciao,
Dr Dario Sanfilippo
http://dariosanfilippo.com
On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 at 21:05, Henrik Frisk <fris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I run the snippet below it's as if there are hickups in the stream of
> pulses. These come at random but most commonly in the beginning of the
> envelope. I have tried it compiled to SC code and to jack stand alone code
> on both Linux and OSX as well as in the online compiler with the same
> result.
>
> Is there a better way to achieve a smotth accelerando of pulses?
>
> imp = ba.beat(en.ar(20,10,1) * 2000);
> env = en.ar(0.00001, 0.05, imp);
> snare = no.multinoise(8) : par(i, 8, _ * env * 0.1);
> process = snare;
>
> Thanks!
> /Henrik
> _______________________________________________
> Faudiostream-users mailing list
> Faudiostream-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faudiostream-users
>
_______________________________________________
Faudiostream-users mailing list
Faudiostream-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faudiostream-users
