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

[sc-dev] Re: error in COsc help

Yup, no argument, and I'm not really sure how it's relevant, considering that we haven't been talking about that. SinOsc is more complicated than a sine wave, no doubt about it.

On 12/07/2014 03:13 AM, James McCartney wrote:

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Sam Potter
<mailto: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

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

                 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
             composition's output until you parametrize it.

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

             sc-dev mailing list

             info (subscription, etc.):


        --- james mccartney

    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/