[sdiy] Update on my arpeggiator

[Richard Wentk]

At 22:28 03/06/2005, Tom Arnold wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 03:18:13PM -0600, Ian Fritz wrote:
> > >I still say that those should be properly called Chaotic Waveforms 
> because
> > >they
> > > dont *sound* spiral.  To be fair, you call it chaotic on the webpage. :-)
> >
> > And I still say you are wrong.  There are non-chaotic spiral waves that 
> are
> > simple analogs of circular waves.  Your definition is bizarre.  A wave is
> > defined by its mathematical, not musical or auditory, properties.
>
>So we agree to disagree.  I say that for a waveform to be called Spiral or
>Circular, it should impart that by its sound, and you go more by what it
>looks like on a scope.

At the risk of restarting The Pointless Thread That Wouldn't Die - isn't it 
more true that most synth waveforms are described by scope shapes rather 
than sound?

There's nothing square-sounding about a square wave, or triangle-sounding 
about a triangle. (What does a square sound like anyway?)

That aside it's not very hard to draw a spiral on a scope. Take two sines 
in quadrature, multiple both by a descending unipolar saw LFO running at 
some multiple of the sine period, apply to X and Y and there you are.

This is more use for designing laser shows - where it looks pretty, 
especially when made to pulse to the beat of the music - than to synth DIY. 
But it's a standard technique, and not something esoteric. Or chaotic. :)

Richard