> > You could try this approach(I also attached a patch with it): >> 48 = 4 * 10 + 1 * 8 >> so you use >> n1=random(10) >> n2 = 10 - n1 >> n3 = random(10) >> n4 = 10-n3 >> . >> . >> n9 = random(8) >> n10 = 8 - n9 >> > > But this makes the odd-ordered chords to start at every 10 seconds. I > believe that Caio wants something more random than that. > > Yes that's right. And another problem is that all the durations are integers. I want something without the feeling of (regular) pulsations.
> BTW I have another idea : > > initialise all of them to equal or almost equal amounts, then modify the > delays gradully : pick a donor randomly among delays that aren't already > minimum ; pick a acceptor randomly among delays that aren't already > maximum ; give one unit of delay from the donor to the acceptor. > > I was trying to figure out something like that. Now that I think about it, is more important to have a minimum duration than a maximum because depending on the minimum I chose, the probability of a chord too long is low (and bottom line I can always change the result to fit in what I want to hear). I'll need to experiment a bit. If I have the time to make a cool patch with general paramethers I'll share with the list. Unfortunately today I could not compose. Caio Barros
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
