[sdiy] What is chaos?

[ceme at cox.net]

Have you read this? 
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/holbein/113/musicchaos.html

This paper seems to favor Tim (a little humor is better than nothing) Servo and some others in that the aid of digital (exact) variables used will lead you down certain paths.

I consider 'chaos' patches to be ones involving multiple CV feedback connections.  Not so much audio feedback, unless the audio is eventually used again as a feedback CV somewhere.

Like everyone's saying, 'random' means the variables aren't exactly the same (as introduced by 'analog' and/or 'noise' and as removed by digital computer calculation), but if I speak of a 'chaos' sound/sequence/melody - I'm referring to a line or evolving sound that I couldn't of come up with in my head...Just try different CV feedback routes and mixes and let it roll for a little while...sometimes there's beauty in the mess.



---- Tim Parkhurst <tim.parkhurst at gmail.com> wrote: 
> On 2/12/07, John Mahoney <jmahoney at gate.net> wrote:
> > At 01:23 PM 2/12/2007, Ian Fritz wrote:
> > >Fabio --
> > >
> > >None of the answers you have been given are even close to correct.
> >
> > Oops. I know my answer was all over the place, and mostly wrong
> > (sorry, Fabio!), but...
> >
> > Is not Dave Bradley's three-oscillating-VCFs-modulating-each-other
> > "glorp" patch (which I alluded to) an example of a chaotic patch?
> > --
> > john
> >
> 
> Okay, so here's my understanding of this (using the 'glorp' patch as
> an example):
> 
> I think if you had a digital system where you could set the start
> points of the waves of each VCLFO and precisely control their
> frequencies, then you would have a chaotic system. Why? Because if you
> repeated the 'experiment' with the same settings, you would get the
> same results.
> 
> Now try the same thing with analog modular VCLFOs. With all of the
> "random noise" present in an analog circuit (e.g. thermal noise and
> small amounts of drift present in even the best analog designs), you
> probably wouldn't get the same repeatability, even if you can sync the
> wave start points. This time, you have a random event. In other words,
> starting with the same settings wouldn't yield the same results time
> after time. The results might be close, but still not exactly
> repeatable and/or predictable. This makes me wonder if it really is
> possible to create a true chaotic system without some some of Digital
> Control Gizmo. This IS however, one of the biggest arguments in favor
> of analogs; from these circuits, we get small amounts of randomness.
> This can create subtle differences which are very pleasing to the ear,
> and we spend hours chasing that elusive quality (randomness, but with
> control).
> 
> Then again, I could be totally wrong and misunderstanding this. If so,
> I'm going to go pout in the corner.
> 
> 
> Tim (I for one, welcome our digital control gizmo overlords) Servo
> -- 
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein