Steven Yi  wrote:

 > Has anyone made recent changes that might have affected either the lfo
 > or vco2 opcodes?  I"ve been using the two together in an instrument,
 > the lfo modulating the pulse width of the vco2 opcode as shown below:
 >
 > klfo1   lfo    .4, 1.3, 1
 > klfo2   lfo    .39, 2.17, 1
 > klfo3   lfo    .43, 3.2394, 1
 >
 > a1      vco2   1, kpchline, 2, klfo1 + .5
 > a2      vco2   1, kpchline, 2, klfo2 + .5
 > a3      vco2   1, kpchline, 2, klfo3 + .5
 >
 > There"s more to the instrument, but it seems that the source is coming
 > from here.  I had compiled the latest CVS and ran with my current
 > project and found the sound of it was very different.  (I think I did
 > my last compile  a couple days ago before the current one.)

Do not know what may be the problem, I tried to compile your example
(with kpchline=100 and 500), and it seemed to be OK. oscbnk.c (which
contains vco2) was last modified two weeks ago, and while there were
a large number of recent changes by John ffitch (with CVS log messages
like "More attempts at speed" and "Attempts at optimisation") which
introduced a few minor bugs (I already fixed lowresx and some other
opcodes), only the a-rate version of lfo was affected, but fortunately
not broken.

Can you provide more details about the problems you have encountered ?


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Microsoft Mobile & Embedded DevCon 2005
Attend MEDC 2005 May 9-12 in Vegas. Learn more about the latest Windows
Embedded(r) & Windows Mobile(tm) platforms, applications & content.  Register
by 3/29 & save $300 http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6883&alloc_id=15149&op=click
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net