yes, they use similar methods of indexing.


Victor
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jacob Joaquin" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:54 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: [thread@cSounds] difference between phasor and tablei 
opcodes


>
> Thanks!  Your explanation makes a lot of sense.  Since I'm not all that
> familiar with the internals of Csound, I don't think I could have ever 
> come
> to that conclusion by myself.
>
> As for your suggestion... Adding a phasor driven tablei signal to a poscil
> signal 180 out of phase returned 0.0 amps after a 20 minute render.  That
> certainly did the trick.
>
> Best,
> Jake
> ---- 
> The Csound Blog
> http://www.thumbuki.com/csound/blog/
>
>
>
> Victor.Lazzarini wrote:
>>
>> These can be explained by the fact that oscil et al phaseaccumulator will
>> have its precision dependent on the sizeof the table (because they use
>> integer maths). You could try poscil to see if this "problem" is less
>> apparent, as it uses 64-bit floating point indexing.Victor
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: 
> http://www.nabble.com/-thread%40cSounds--difference-between-phasor-and-tablei-opcodes-tp15213360p15214553.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound"