From the original SynthMaker forum (2004–2014), with its members’ names and dates.
tester ·
I just found, that green rand primitive is not so random as it appears to be. When I start exported app - each time, the first "random" value is the same. So my question to those who are familiar with SM in details. Is the rand primitive using periodic clock to generate random values (on user interaction) or first shot just initializes reference point for some sort of time-based counting? I.e. how it works in SM?
MegaHurtz ·
This is a problem that has bothered mathematicians for ages. True random is impossible to make, so its just a way of tricking the brain into thinking it`s random. The closest thing to random is sampling the noise of an analog input. This being a cosmically large random series. Still its not random. Because random doesnt exist. SM`s is probably a list of some sort.
tester ·
@MegaHurtz - stop! 😉 No philosophising 🙂
When using "rand" primitive and "editbox" to which "rand" value is sent in => exported exe application
---> first manually triggered "random" value that is sent from "rand" to "editbox" is always the same. (after application is turned off and on, over and over - first "random" value is always the same).
Which means, that rand primitive uses for the reference it's internal counter, that starts on first shot.
Rand could use PCs clock for calculating initial offset or anything else that is in motion.
aliasant ·
tester wrote: @MegaHurtz - stop! 😉 No philosophising 🙂
When using "rand" primitive and "editbox" to which "rand" value is sent in => exported exe application
---> first manually triggered "random" value that is sent from "rand" to "editbox" is always the same. (after application is turned off and on, over and over - first "random" value is always the same).
Which means, that rand primitive uses for the reference it's internal counter, that starts on first shot.
Rand could use PCs clock for calculating initial offset or anything else that is in motion.
You can use Time as a seed. Or do as MH said, Sample a monophonic stream ie. an osc followed by a mono to float.
tester ·
Thanks. I just realized, that there is "system time" detector primitive, so I will use it for mixing randoms. But again a part of schematic beeds to be rebuilt 😉 Anyway good to know, how certain primitives behave in details, as Trog suggests on each opportunity.
philter5 ·
hehehehew the old story with the "random"..... i´ve seen a nice documentation about some experiments made by a german scientist. when i remember right, they said you have to take a radioactive material and measure it with a geiger zähler to get a real "random" signal ... 😀 (i´ll search the link from the doku and post it here, it´s really interesting!) another way to get some "random" values is http://www.random.org/ .... you can easily create random float/int values or random float/int arrays.
tester ·
If we speak about non-randomness of randomness, here is something I usually deal with 😉
oddson ·
Back to the original point... the random primitive should use the system time as a seed when seed input is zero and so should not come up with the same value on restart if it's conneted to an afterLoad primitive but that's what I'm seeing too.
Anyone else? Seems like a bug.
MegaHurtz ·
philter5 wrote: hehehehew the old story with the "random"..... i´ve seen a nice documentation about some experiments made by a german scientist. when i remember right, they said you have to take a radioactive material and measure it with a geiger zähler to get a real "random" signal ... 😀 (i´ll search the link from the doku and post it here, it´s really interesting!) another way to get some "random" values is http://www.random.org/ .... you can easily create random float/int values or random float/int arrays.
Hehe, COOL :p didnt know beta decay would be so non periodic it`s considered most random by ze Germans. Shows how little we know about the quantum world. Im sorry i dont really use those prims.
aliasant ·
oddson wrote: Back to the original point... the random primitive should use the system time as a seed when seed input is zero and so should not come up with the same value on restart if it's conneted to an afterLoad primitive but that's what I'm seeing too.
Anyone else? Seems like a bug.
Reminds me. I noticed the same a while back. Didnt report it thoug 🙁
oddson ·
aliasant wrote: Reminds me. I noticed the same a while back. Didnt report it
It's funny I could swear this was working only last week. 😕
aliasant ·
oddson wrote: aliasant wrote: Reminds me. I noticed the same a while back. Didnt report it
It's funny I could swear this was working only last week. 😕
It seems if you trigger the (empty) seed input just before you trigger the Get Random it works. Not very usefull though
I ended up creating a list with 32k random numbers in an array. Then a random number picks one of those from the list and that got me a nice random function with equall dispersion all over. ( is that even english?)
oddson ·
Strange... I tried this from my laptop this morning and got same number over and over. Now I'm getting a different value each time?
tester ·
I'm getting again and again the same value on load (SM is turned off and on; if SM is on, and only schematic is reloaded - then it works fine).
philter5 ·
the name of the german movie was "die Mechanik des Zufalls", a ARTE production, and the scientist was Helmut Schmidt. it gets really weird when they tell you, that "randomness", created from/with computers, does somehow interact with our brain. for example, generated random numbers on university´s worldwide showed a clear reaction when something BAD happend in the world, events like 9/11 or the death of Lady Di had a HUGE influence to the random numbers....
Mo ·
Use time as seed. If there's multiple random primitives in the schematic, use the first randomized number to seed the next.
aliasant ·
tester wrote: I'm getting again and again the same value on load (SM is turned off and on; if SM is on, and only schematic is reloaded - then it works fine).
Confirmed.
tester ·
[quote="Mo"]Use time as seed. If there's multiple random primitives in the schematic, use the first randomized number to seed the next.
Good but... Sometimes randomizers are hidden deep inside modules and migrate often from place to place or from schematic to schematic then; too many nodes to control. Is there a way to make them independent?
MegaHurtz ·
Add a constant to the seed?
Mo ·
Yes, or make a array of random seeds with time as seed and send to the other random primitives.
Here's an example:
MegaHurtz ·
philter5 wrote: the name of the german movie was "die Mechanik des Zufalls", a ARTE production, and the scientist was Helmut Schmidt. it gets really weird when they tell you, that "randomness", created from/with computers, does somehow interact with our brain. for example, generated random numbers on university´s worldwide showed a clear reaction when something BAD happend in the world, events like 9/11 or the death of Lady Di had a HUGE influence to the random numbers....
I saw that once, Like a universal flow of chance.
Classic M8! Just watched it, funny they even attempt to syncronise their brainwaves with the devices. Think it`s kinda brilliant to attempt to influence microtexture rather than macrotexture.
philter5 ·
8o guys after some failed try´s to to get some nuclear material for my DIY-random-number-generator based on the schmitt machine , i quitted that idea and thought about how to create theese numbers other ways... best would be (i think) to take the computer only as a kind of "additional helper here" (e.g. convert the sample taken from another source to values), but the SOURCE of the sample shouldn´t be a computer or machine, (they are programmed so there is always some kind of control involved) it has to be something better... something EVERYBODY could simply use as source and that has the highest amount of "randomness" you can get (hehe to bad that we couldn´t proof that ). first thing i thought about was to take (visual) samples from a a white noise from a analog tv screen.(aren´t these white snowflakes all over the screen frequencies influenced by the universe?) or take samples from a radio receiver that is not set to a programm (the strange sounding noises that mostly are at the end of the Freq Bands). what about that? i mean random numbers generated with SMdo look like RANDOM numbers but in fact they aren´t. the strange noise from a radio receiver don´t seem to be programmed, or? would be nice because everybody could easily build his own !
btw, here is a small osm with a example of the "Schmitt Random Number Generator" and how it worked. it´s just for demonstrating the basic concept
phil
of course you CAN try to influence the running direction BUT as the radioactive random source is missing here 😀 it´s no "real" random so will NEVER know if the compUter interacts with your mind or not... but will we ever know....
trogluddite ·
What you need is a fresh cup of.really hot tea. 😉
Seriously though - what you want may not be so difficult. The noise generator on a lot of old analogue synthesisers was usually nothing more than the random background noise present in any electrical circuit - it was just amplified a hell of a lot to bring it up to the audio signal level. If you search the web, you'll probably find that you can build what you need from a few dollars worth of transistors, and then just plug it into a spare audio input. Depending on your audio setup, even the background hiss from a cranked up mic pre-amp might do the job (without a microphone plugged in, naturally - you wouldn't want pitched sounds getting in there and biasing the values!). The spectrum of the noise may not be exactly what you need - but that could be sorted with a bit of filtering, or just sample the values at a slower rate to use as seeds for a code algorithm.
The cup of tea is optional - though in most materials, the amount of noise will rise with temperature, so it might still help! 😉
tester ·
Take such experiments more seriously. 🙂 Some years ago I used similar method (well, very sophisticated actually, my own design) for national lottery (replicated too), and prefer not to speak about the results in public. Anyway I don't care what mainstream science says; as a researcher I feel myself rather as a programmer, not PhD; while scientific theory does not have to work to be accepted, software either works or not. Measurement of authenticity is the effectiveness. Fortunately my SM app works glitchless when exporting audio via VST (fact - one program/preset loads c.a. 10-30 seconds, but it works). Puff...
philter5 ·
trogluddite wrote: What you need is a fresh cup of.really hot tea. 😉
Seriously though - what you want may not be so difficult. The noise generator on a lot of old analogue synthesisers was usually nothing more than the random background noise present in any electrical circuit - it was just amplified a hell of a lot to bring it up to the audio signal level. If you search the web, you'll probably find that you can build what you need from a few dollars worth of transistors, and then just plug it into a spare audio input. Depending on your audio setup, even the background hiss from a cranked up mic pre-amp might do the job (without a microphone plugged in, naturally - you wouldn't want pitched sounds getting in there and biasing the values!). The spectrum of the noise may not be exactly what you need - but that could be sorted with a bit of filtering, or just sample the values at a slower rate to use as seeds for a code algorithm.
The cup of tea is optional - though in most materials, the amount of noise will rise with temperature, so it might still help! 😉
nice article trog, really fun to read 😀
i switched from the (way too much) beer i drunk last night (yes trog your not the only drunken monkey) to some cup´s of tea...really helped. was in some kind of physical madness hehe....
tester wrote: Take such experiments more seriously. 🙂 Some years ago I used similar method (well, very sophisticated actually, my own design) for national lottery (replicated too), and prefer not to speak about the results in public. Anyway I don't care what mainstream science says; as a researcher I feel myself rather as a programmer, not PhD; while scientific theory does not have to work to be accepted, software either works or not. Measurement of authenticity is the effectiveness. Fortunately my SM app works glitchless when exporting audio via VST (fact - one program/preset loads c.a. 10-30 seconds, but it works). Puff...
i had turned on my sarcasm-mode when i wrote my last post 😀
tester ·
Which randomness is more stable and not affectable - produced by a soundcard (noise) or produced by radioactive spreads? 😉 With quality of randomness is like with quality of food or electronics. 🙂
trogluddite ·
tester wrote: Take such experiments more seriously.
Ah, but I think we do - it is precisely their non-intuitive, apparent "absurdity" that makes them interesting. All but the basest, "insulting" kinds of humour, derive from the surprise of finding unexpected tangential connections. A prime training ground for the mind's "lateral thinking" processes. I think that's why even 25 years after first reading it, I still love Douglas Adams' "Hitch-hikers guide to the Galaxy" (from which the "infinite probability drive" extract comes) - the central character, Arthur Dent, is such a brilliant (and funny) example of a man overwhelmed by the complexity and strangeness of the universe - precisely because he completely lacks curiosity.
tester wrote: produced by a soundcard (noise) or produced by radioactive spreads?
And interesting opposites perceptually. That is, we can talk of "constant" noise - categorised by the brain as a single unchanging continuum, with the lack of a "pattern" being perceived as containing less information than even a single sine tone. On an instinctive level, broadband noise does not appear random at all, and we are adept at characterising it and filtering it out. Yet we might perceive the decay of atoms as more random simply because we are observing closely in an attempt to witness discrete events. I suppose it just makes me wonder whether the strength of any link between the mind and physical events might be altered by our ability (or not) to perceive (or accept as valid) the results of our influence.
tester ·
Randomnes is a matter of abstract layer of reality on which it is analyzed. All layers are random, but on many of layers - this randomness can be affected by conventional means. For example, if you have a wavering pendulum, then you can affect it with conventional means - by touch of your hand. If you have a soundcard noise, then it is attractor like phenomenon - semi-patterned, yet affected by multiple non-random conventional means like electronics, which can be directly affected by other conventional means (there is direct connection between layers). If you have radioactiveness, then in typical circumstances you can't affect it directly by conventional means (no touch, no electronics, etc.), nor there is direct connection between layer of radioactiveness and higher levels of physical reality (conection is rather discrete, fuzzy logic). Folks who look for random event generators for such kind of experiments - follow that direction. The more conventional means of influence, the more possible to cheat so to speak, and this is the borderline of defining which layer is proper. So even if some day radioactivity becomes patterned - there will be a need to define new layer of randomness. Still following? 😉 So everything is relative, and the "closed system" in open environment is defined only by borderlines made of what you are able to reach by conventional means. Simple? Simple! Like SM triggers philosophy... 🙂
tester ·
And working Rand that does not duplicates first value on SM restart. It uses system timer (miliseconds) and outputs the same range as Rand primitive. Mo - your example (single Rand) does not works, just checked. Rand primitive is just cranky.
Updated (triggers again...).
tester ·
And the big question to my solution. By combining Rand and Clock - did the random spread across the spectrum of values changed to lower centrum (mor hits on lower values)) or is it only my impression?
//update:
As suspected. :-/
tester ·
I think i have another idea. To activate Rand (first click) - afterload primitive could send 1 trigger, but rands output should block that 1st trigger. Any simple ways to block only 1 (first) trigger and first value and pass all others?
//update:
Even this does not works. :-/ After turning SM on and off (not only the schematic) - first triggered value with red trigger - is always the same (afterload value too).
tester ·
This one works. First after load Rand value is ignored (instead of - system clock value is used), and next values are taken from Rand.
//...and update:
Although clocked version works correctly, when dealing with multiple values triggered at the same time - first shot tends to be either 0 or 1 for all switches. Usually in sync, sometimes out of sync. (type your favourite words here). So first shot uses combination of Rand and clock. Too many connections? 😀
tester ·
Okay, it looks, that Rand primitive works correclty, but needs proper wiring. I asked malc about this issue, and he sent me an explanation with example below. Solution is simple - time based seed must be triggered externally, once, after load - to activate the stream.
infuzion ·
You are correct that the time-clock seeding for the Random primitive is not so random. The most simple explanation for this is that the universe is about to end soon; not only it is running out of energy (entropy), but running out of time. So what time there is left is being forced to recycle itself though repeating history. You can see this with the financial ruin of the EU; not only is pre-WWII repeating itself, but also the Middle Ages at the same time (people basically are serfs since 70%+ is taxed away). & here the USA we are repeating the downward spiral of the last great moments of the British Empire; too stretched out for what we can afford.
Either that or perhaps the proximity of the Moon the past few weeks cause more bits to be alined a certain way.
But no worries, as long as you can count the ms of how long it takes for the SM VST to load, you'll always have a random seed, & you can help the universe can stagger forward, taking its last few deep breaths.
tester ·
Randomness is the most perfect order that can be created. Universe appears and disappears averagely 40 times per second, depending on the framerate of your consciousness. Universe is as it is because of the fixed perception you use to see it and thus - to create it in terms of form and meaning and connections. Yes, the end of time comes - and we will be in a world with no time (no beginnings, no ends, no progressions, quantum superposition of everything that is and is not). Maybe some transition of relative time, that each one of us reflects by selfawareness, visions and memories. Meanwhile - we have still some months or years of dealing with regular, linear time, so spend it in the most beautufil way you can. Can you? 😉
MegaHurtz ·
Guess tinfoil hats arent going to save us no more Help! 😮 Hehe, yea The bad noise may stay to see the vultures gather. Hey tester are you Lesobrod?
tester ·
Nope. Why?
trogluddite ·
MegaHurtz wrote: Hey tester are you Lesobrod?
tester wrote: Nope. Why?
There is a certain similarity of philosophy, I think. Shame he does not hang around here any more - he also brought to the forum some ideas beyond just the regular 'utilitarianism', and like you, was interested to use SM in ways beyond what might be called the 'entertainment industry'. I cannot speak for why MegaHurtz brings up his name, but I enjoyed Lesobrod's presence here, and would consider the comparison a compliment. It is interesting to speculate to what extent the similarity is a legacy of culture and maybe the divisions of the "Cold War" (Lesobrod was/is in Moscow). The last two decades have revealed much scientific research from beyond the old "Iron Curtain" of which the "Western" scientific community had been largely unaware. Though they share the basic scientific method, I have often thought that these revealed a fascinating difference in the questions that scientists have been willing to consider worthy of further research. Somehow, it seems to me, the "Eastern" approach is more inquisitive, and less guided by the imperative that science should always be an attempt to divine the next "revolution" in material comfort. I have no doubt that my particular education in the sciences colours my own interpretation of the 'discoveries' that I hear about. The diversity can only be a good thing so long as we are vigilant against those who willfully distort their results.
As for randomness - my opinion on that has been in my forum signature for years! 😉
tester ·
Ah, I see. 😉
Maybe there is something else to consider too. From my view - this forum (like anyelse) has an energy signature, that is made of units like us - you, me, and others; me and Lesobrod - we represent one of that very specific particles, a pattern of expression, one of many, but in some ways - statistically unique (when I go, someone else will come to my place). You Trog (way of speaking, logo/avatar, sense of humor) remind me one of my internet friends with which we are conneted throgh friendship and some internet projects. There is always some exchange of people, but the pattern remains the same, to make tle larger project work. I guess this has to do with malc too; we express his capabilities to create projects like SM, FS. On the other hand, patterns like you (and other you's) and me (and other me's) - always meet, because it's in their nature. Places where they meet - depends on energy signature of that places. Sure - there are always differences, but the general feeling remains the same. That's the glimpse of a greater perspective. Noisy homogenic randomness versus cloudy attractors, invisible fields of tactile meaning.
I guess, in Countries, where you have (or had in last few decades) to learn to be on your own (job, money, survival, political dependencies, isolation, etc.) while having an independent inspiration (vision, dream) - mainstream science can't dominate open-minded thinking, because both are accepted and... ignored/rejected in the same way 😉
MegaHurtz ·
Indeed because hes not clearly hanging around here any more, and he was doing similar kind of noisy beating stuff. Have to pay my respects to the words appearing after tho. Seriously deep 🙂 Makes something like physics forum look like a bunch of retards. 😀
tester ·
I'm not sure how to translate this sentence to english correctly, so I say like this: "while God/divine is (in) oneness, the devil/catch is in details." 😉
That's why the context and template for expected end-results is such a useful thing.
MegaHurtz ·
"the devil is in the details"
tester ·
...which means, that when we usually speak of randomness and similar topics - we don't need to worry about too high level of details. We speak generally, in general context, and about general results, no tweaks so to speak. So we can easily jump beyond the borderlines of ordinary/mainstream science, leaving the details for others to find out; we only need a proper model or at least a cue of what is out there. Mainstream science on the other hand is slowed down by these details and limited to a directional/narrow search, depending on precision mode ("computation speed" is the same in both cases); like the recent experiment in CERN and 1 cable connection missing. Synthmaker for example - is a thing that you don't need to worry about too many things when dealing with simple projects - you can acomplish them in many various ways. Things gets more complicated when projects gets more complex in structure. Sometimes then - small details make us to revisit the whole things in order to make them work. :=)
//edit:
Just read an interesting sentence: "chance one per billion occurs in 9 of 10 cases". Good sentence, isn;t it? 😉
MegaHurtz ·
I dont see myself opposed to science, actually can do complex maths electronics and synthesis. Just prone to combine it with mystical influence to create spiritual machines 🙂. see if i can reach the 8th layer to excite the 7 we share. Witch is all accurate and rational when you think about it. Good thing the shitload of work getting synthmaker to reflect myself is over, and the bolting new stuff together fast begins. Took me long enough to rewrite it all.
infuzion ·
MIA from this thread: attic (being from San Fransisco & existentialist it seems)
MegaHurtz ·
Im on my own religion. Call me hermetic, and agnostic. No!.. That`s the harmony of spheres. 😉
tester ·
Can I call you just... MegaHurtz? 😉
MegaHurtz ·
🙂 gladly.
Wrote something here? To have a post removed or your name hidden, write to [email protected].
SynthMaker