Thanks Mike, this looks like a useful opcode. I had previously tried subtracting .0001 from the result, and couldn't tell the difference, but it was a bit hasty. Looking at the documentation for transeg: ibeg + (ivalue - ibeg) * (1 - exp( i*itype/(n-1) )) / (1 - exp(itype)) I take it ibeg is ia, and ivalue is ib, for idur seconds; then ibeg is ib and ivalue is ic, for idur1 seconds... etc.? Anyone know what is i? (no existential jokes please) And does this automatically skip n=1? Perhaps I'll have a look at the code. -Chuckk On 11/1/07, Michael Gogins wrote: > > > A quick glimpse suggests expseg as culprint. It won't start from 0, and > you may hear 0.001 or whatever you put in as starting point. Use the newer > transeg by John ffitch, instead. > > Hope this helps, > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Chuckk Hubbard > >Sent: Nov 1, 2007 2:37 PM > >To: Csound List > >Subject: [Csnd] envelope clicks still > > > >I know this should be the simplest thing, but it still befuddles me. > >Can anyone tell me why I get clicks between notes with this? It sounds > to > >me like the clicks are at both the beginning and end. > >I apply the a-rate amplitude envelope after the filter, so that the last > >filter input won't cut off suddenly when the note ends. But something > still > >clicks. Why? > > > >Is there any difference between basing the envelope on amplitude 1 and > the > >oscillators on iamp, vs. basing the envelope on amplitude iamp and using > 1 > >for the oscillators' amplitude? > >It seems that either way would cause a staircase effect, when something > of > >the range 0-1 is amplified to the range 0-32767, but I don't completely > >understand floating point arithmetic. > > > >Or, perhaps I should use the envelope as the kamp argument of the > >oscillators, and have a separate linear envelope that only tapers sharply > at > >the very end, to be applied after the filter? > >Any suggestions? > > > >-Chuckk > > > >-- > >http://www.badmuthahubbard.com > > > > > -- http://www.badmuthahubbard.com