No, all my stuff's GPL and there are no strings attached. If you want
to have a look at the code, I have an archive with the dafx material
in: http://music.nuim.ie/vlazzarini/tmp/Dafx08.zip

Out of curiosity, I just checked the cost here on my computer. Takes
about 2.3 secs to do 100 secs of output. Using a buzz instead, is about
2 secs per 100 secs. Not bad.

Victor

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Dobson" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 10:24 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: UDO question..


> victor wrote:
>>
> ...
>> .
>> It's actually pretty fast, I have a Csound reference
>> implementation. It's also being added to a commercial software synth by
>> the people we wrote it for.
>>
>
> Sounds good. Will there be any obstacles to a published Csound opcode?
>
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound" 

Thanks for posting these examples - I finally got the csd ones running 
after I twigged they needed  5.09. Somewhat slow on the G4 iMac (just 4 
voices before breakup), but much better on dual-core, unsurprisingly - I 
will need to lengthen the envelopes to be sure I am genuinely playing 
more than 16 voices (via my 2-octave Oxygen8 controller), but so far so 
good!  One thing - am I right in assuming the loss of waveform shape at 
low frequencies  (looks like bottom partials are reduced quite a bit, 
from about 200Hz), and the just-noticeable latency is because of the new 
ultra-powerful dcblock2 opcode? Presumably for low notes (e.g. 
floor-shaking 50Hz) the order has to be increased pro rata. Higher up 
the range, the waveforms look and sound excellent!

Richard Dobson



victor wrote:
> No, all my stuff's GPL and there are no strings attached. If you want
> to have a look at the code, I have an archive with the dafx material
> in: http://music.nuim.ie/vlazzarini/tmp/Dafx08.zip
> 
> Out of curiosity, I just checked the cost here on my computer. Takes
> about 2.3 secs to do 100 secs of output. Using a buzz instead, is about
> 2 secs per 100 secs. Not bad.
> 
> Victor
>