Author |
Message |
ian-s
Joined: Apr 01, 2004 Posts: 2669 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Audio files: 42
G2 patch files: 626
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003 Posts: 18197 Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 212
G2 patch files: 60
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:22 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Assuming you had one of the Buchla modules, how would you verify that your patch was equivalent? _________________ --Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
ian-s
Joined: Apr 01, 2004 Posts: 2669 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Audio files: 42
G2 patch files: 626
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:09 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
mosc wrote: | Assuming you had one of the Buchla modules, how would you verify that your patch was equivalent? |
The 4006 with hard wired feedback and a known initial state will always produce the same set of voltages so it is pseudorandom, not really uncertain at all. If I have the feedback correct, and the flip flop feeds a 1 into the input after power up till reset by the 5th stage, the hardware and model should produce the same notes if clocked at the same time. The audio rate tone should also be the same if clocked at the same rate.
I am not sure how long the sequence is, with only two bits in the fb it may not be optimal length. This probably has more historical value than practical use. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jamos
Joined: Jun 01, 2004 Posts: 514 Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Audio files: 4
G2 patch files: 41
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:04 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
This is actually another classical illustration of chaos theory: that is, a simple operation that yields extremely complex results that appear to be random, but are actually deterministic.
In fact, all "random" process on computers are actually just forms of chaos. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003 Posts: 18197 Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 212
G2 patch files: 60
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:28 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm not hip to the math of chaos and random number, but to me there is at least a subjective difference - at least to my limited understanding. In a random, or pseudorandom, signal there are no quasi-periodic parts. In choas, there are times when it seems like there is an oscillation or periodic type of signal. Then this blows up but is can eventually settle into another quasi periodic phase. My limited understanding is that the chaos functions jumps from one semi-stable state to another.
I read a math professor state somewhere that the orbits of the planets represent a chaotic system. I thought he said that because of very small changes, it's not possible to predict the state of the solar system in the very distant future (whatever that means). I guess the butterfly effect might cause something really dramatic to happen, like Jupiter sucking in Mars or something, especially if Mars got wacked by a big comet in just the right way.
Anyway, chaos and random aren't really the same thing. _________________ --Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|