Thanks, that's useful.

As you may recall, oscillator indexing in Csound is highly optimized -- was that done by Richard Dobson? It would be interesting to see if that particular part of those systems is likewise optimized.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
>From: Atte Andr� Jensen 
>Sent: Mar 24, 2006 4:26 PM
>To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: [Csnd] ChucK?? (was Re: [Csnd] The future of computer music? (was Re: [Csnd] The future of winsound))
>
>Iain Duncan wrote:
>
>> Crap, it was quite a while a go, so I can't remember the details. I
>> think we were checking out how many oscillators we could do in real time
>> under various set ups for live use.
>
>There was a thread in the chuck list a while back. Here are that highlights:
>
>Graham Percival posted a specefic piece of code, that would play 
>smoothly with 47 sines (1 ghz G4 powerbook, 512 megs ram, OSX 10.3.9).
>
>Ge Wang got 62 sine on an equal system, and noted something about 
>setting "processor performance" to "highest".
>
>With changed settings Graham could also do 62 sines.
>
>I (Atte Jensen) could get 136 sines (2.4Ghz PIV laptop, 512MB ram that 
>runs debian/unstable). I did a quick test in csound and could get 660 sines.
>
>Axel Balley got 430 sines on SuperCollider (Powerbook G4 800/1GB).
>
>Michal Sata got 100 chuck-sines (AMD AthlonXP 1.2G) and 505 sines in pd 
>(same system).
>
>-- 
>peace, love & harmony
>Atte
>
>http://www.atte.dk
>-- 
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Michael Gogins wrote:
> Thanks, that's useful.
> 
> As you may recall, oscillator indexing in Csound is highly optimized
> -- was that done by Richard Dobson? It would be interesting to see if
> that particular part of those systems is likewise optimized.
> 

If you mean the original oscil etc code (and the (in)famous power-of-two 
restriction), it goes back all the way to Barry Vercoe. The only 
oscillator code I have contributed is in pvsadsyn. Which is somewhat 
different from running 1024 instances of oscil!

Richard Dobson

el Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:42:40 +0000
Richard Dobson  escribió:


> If you mean the original oscil etc code (and the (in)famous power-of-two 
> restriction), it goes back all the way to Barry Vercoe. 

btw, some time ago the possibility was discussed on the list, that the table
opcode (or some variant of it) could access non-power-of-two tables
generated by GEN01 with deferred size. what's the status of that?

best,

lj