[sc-dev] Re: Some 3.3 work

[Rohan Drape <rohan.drape@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2008-12-19, Josh Parmenter wrote:
> If something better can be done, why shouldn't we do it? If a better
> design concept comes along later, shouldn't we implement it?

but from the scsynth point of view this is *not* better.  it shifts
from a simple control bus naming scheme to a complicated naming
scheme.

control buses and audio buses are completely different.  

control buses are persistent and almost cost free.  audio buses are
ephemeral (zeroed) and rather expensive.

why would control buses be named in relation to audio buses?

> Why do you need to query your instance of scsynth?  

because in the general case not every scsynth client starts scsynth.

> There IS a difference between this and In.ar. With In.ar, you MUST  
> provide an audio signal on a bus. With the proposal, you could give it  
> the argument to the SynthDef a value when the synth is started, the  
> index for a control bus OR the index of an audio bus, and all three  
> would work as expected.

yes, but in the constant or control rate cases you are still running
the whole graph at audio rate, so it is much the same as the example i
posted, however with a more uniform notation in sclang.

i am certainly not objecting to any changes to sclang, just the
proposed change to scsynth and to the existing 'Control' unit
generator.

regards,
rohan


_______________________________________________
sc-dev mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/