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 <gogins@pipeline.com> 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 <
badmuthahubbard@gmail.com>
>Sent: Nov 1, 2007 2:37 PM
>To: Csound List <csound@lists.bath.ac.uk>
>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