On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Derek Holzer derek@umatic.nl wrote:
Would $0 instantiation variables be of use here? Or would that make each random generator one value away from the one beside it?
not a bad idea--because each random generator would be far apart in sequence--no correlation between the sequences. However, it doesn't solve the original problem, making them different between loads of the patch.
Perhaps i am getting you wrong, but if i would want different behavior each time i'd open that patch, the noise from your adc~ would do that, bc it is surely different (thermal noise, etc) every time. (provided you switched your dsp~ on in advance). :-)
rgrds, PP
d.
Charles Henry wrote:
In a way~, it's not so straightforward. Let's say the random generators are identical and seeded by another identical random generator with no further modifications. Then, all the other random generators are correlated--using the same sequence, but with slightly different starting points within that sequence.
so, you need to have a map of the range of random onto itself, which is different from the random sequence mapping. That way, you actually obtain seed values which are spaced far apart in the sequence.
This could be actually pretty simple, e.g. seed=rand_max - input_from_1st_rand
Chuck
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
Martin Peach wrote:
Or have a single random generator inside pd that feeds all the random objects.
yes of course, this would be the most straight forward solution.
mfgasdr IOhannes
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 24: "Bridges -build -burn"
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list