[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [sc-dev] Re: error in COsc help

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Sam Potter <sfp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Oh brother!

I guess I should have specified (really??) that the parametrization I was talking about was just the set of parameters exposed to the user by the usual ar, kr, etc. methods. Considering just those parameters, it doesn't make sense to talk about "the running max of SinOsc".

Considering just those parameters, by your logic, nor does it make sense to talk about the waveform of SinOsc being a sine wave, since I can set the freq to zero, the phase to pi/2 and then the waveform becomes whatever is in the mul input. Or set the mul to zero and then the waveform is whatever comes in the add input, or set the freq to zero and apply a waveform to the phase input whose arcsine is what I want the output to be and then the waveform will be that.


On 12/06/2014 09:22 PM, James McCartney wrote:

Then all documentation would be useless. By your criteria, the
documentation of SinOsc should not even say it outputs a sine wave,
because it could be parameterized to output any arbitrary waveform.

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Sam Potter
<mailto:sfp@xxxxxxx>> wrote:

        thanks kindly julian, you are the eternal diplomat, i'm ashamed.

        i wonder though, could we say "The peak amplitude of SinOsc is one",
        or would that too need a qualification?


        i think the mistake here is clear, we can always turn back in the


    The mistake is in assuming that it makes sense to talk about "the
    peak amplitude of SinOsc". "SinOsc" doesn't have a single peak
    amplitude -- it's a class which represents an interface to a table
    look-up oscillator which has parameters which have to be set before
    it does anything well-defined. In other words, if you compose
    RunningMax (or whatever) and SinOsc, you know nothing about that
    composition's output until you parametrize it.

    I guess you could talk about the set of peak amplitudes of SinOsc,
    but I don't see that as being a good thing to include in the

    sc-dev mailing list

    info (subscription, etc.):
    archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/__marchives/sc-dev/
    search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/__lists/sc-dev/search/

--- james mccartney

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/

--- james mccartney