Re: Thoughts and questions on the API from a modular synth point of view

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Peter van der Noord <peterdunord@gmail.com
> wrote:

> I would point out that using oscillators for LFOs, et al, you would
> likely want very careful control over when the waveform starts - in which
> case, having a separate noteOn method is actually quite useful.
>
> You are right, but the naming is weird since an oscillator itself has
> nothing to do with notes that can be turned on or off. I'd call them
> start() and stop().
>

That's already filed as an issue:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17344.

> Wouldn't you actually want to set up a sync relationship between two
> oscillators instead?  Having to deal with calling a sync method a thousand
> times a second seems odd to me.  But Chris has probably thought of this.
>
> It's not that odd. Resetting an osc when used as lfo is often done with
> the beat, for example to create temposynced filtersweeps (just listen to
> any dubstep song to hear that effect). While that reset indeed isnt called
> thousands times per second, it's an often used (easy and cheap, cpu wise)
> soundsynthesis technique to create strange harmonics as well (two oscs at
> audible but different frequencies, one of them syncing the other). A lot of
> analog and digital oscillators have a sync input for this purpose.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillator_sync
>

That's what I was saying - I think you want a gating/trigger input type,
and a separate thing (not just a generic "input") to connect to.  I'm
definitely supportive of having sync on oscillators, although you CAN
implement this today (with noteOns).