Charles Henry wrote: > In a way~, it's not so straightforward. Let's say the random > generators are identical and seeded by another identical random > generator with no further modifications. Then, all the other random > generators are correlated--using the same sequence, but with slightly > different starting points within that sequence.
btw, this is how Pd's random generator (and [noise~], btw) works anyhow: there is only a single built-in pseudo-random sequence and all you can modify is the starting point. but you are right insofar as my original suggestion of using one [random] to seed the other [random]s probably exposes this problem more than other approaches (incrementing the seed by one for each instance). my last suggestion was about using a _single_ [random] and query that from all instances of [myrandom]; which should behave way batter (i think) fgmasdr IOhannes _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
