>
>> Graphs are a good way of mentally modelling what is going on.
>>Languages which
>> use graphs explicitly don't require you to hold the graph in your head since
>> it's there on the screen. Maybe? I dunno.
>
>Yes, box-and line graphs are an excellent way of mentally modelling
>what is going on in an abstract audio processing graph. Are there
>approaches to audio synthesis that aren't so natural to graphs though?
Just as we shouldn't speak of "graphical" vs "textual", I think it is
misleading to speak of "natural".
We don't have to think sound in terms of signals that flow through
the system, I think of it as being there. This comes from sound
engineering. Also we don't need to think of a program as a "patch".
There are several possibilities. Say, a and b are variables (refering
to varying signals). c = a + b may simply mean that c _is_ the sum of
these sounds (whatever semantics we have for +), not that a flows to
+ and b flows to + and out of + there flows something into c. And if
I think referentially, I think of c as the generator for such a sum,
which may have any number of instances.
--
.
Received on Sat Oct 17 2009 - 22:50:15 BST