Untested, but based on the source code provided, it looks like it's 47·n + 59 clock cycles per iteration (or on the 84+, 47·n + 61 in RAM, 55·n + 70 in a Flash app.)  Each iteration is only half a cycle of your square wave, though.  So if you wanted to play a tone of 440 Hz, you'd want the frequency parameter to be ((6,000,000 / 880) - 59) / 47 = 144.

For the time parameter, figure each tick is about 47/6 = 7.8333 microseconds, so a second would be 128,000 ticks.  This will vary depending on the frequency parameter, though.  (If you want to play notes longer than 65536, I think it would work so long as you ensure that the time parameter is a multiple of twice the frequency parameter.  Or maybe 1 less.)

Since it's all based on the CPU clock, your mileage will vary - you won't get perfectly precise hardware-independent tones in any case.  Still, you might want to experiment a little.

No, you can't play chords with that routine.

Untested, but based on the source code provided, it looks like it's 47·n + 59 clock cycles per iteration (or on the 84+, 47·n + 61 in RAM, 55·n + 70 in a Flash app.)  Each iteration is only half a cycle of your square wave, though.  So if you wanted to play a tone of 440 Hz, you'd want the frequency parameter to be ((6,000,000 / 880) - 59) / 47 = 144.

For the time parameter, figure each tick is about 47/6 = 7.8333 microseconds, so a second would be 128,000 ticks.  This will vary depending on the frequency parameter, though.  (If you want to play notes longer than 65536, I think it would work so long as you ensure that the time parameter is a multiple of twice the frequency parameter.  Or maybe 1 less.)

?
I'm sorry - I barely understood that - it was too complex for me.
Do you think it's possible for you to churn out a few nice and simple formulas where I can plug in whatever hertz I want to output the frequency value I should put in?

Funny, you're right, the wavelengths in that table are close to the values you want (though unless I've made a mistake somewhere, they're actually off by about an octave.)

If f is your frequency in hertz, and t is your duration in seconds,

frequency parameter (or I guess wavelength parameter would be a better name), k = ((3000000 / f) − 59) / 47
or k ≈ (63830 / f) − 1.3

duration parameter, d = t · 6000000 · k / (47k + 59)
or d ≈ t · 127660 · (k / (k + 1.3))
(or for low frequencies, d ≈ t · 127660)

and if you want to play a continuous tone using two 'Freq' commands, make sure that for the first command, d is a multiple of 2k.

perhaps frequency could be overloaded with another parameter type? because it we have not so many tones we can access right now, and i think we just only use the Freq( command to play music with normal tones.
Example:
.for a low A sharp
Freq(^A,1
.for a high B flat
Freq(vB,5
.for a central C
Freq(-C,3


So question: How does my computer play chords when I'm listening to music?  Is it possible to do something similar on-calc?
Another question: Is it possible to control volume on the calculator?

You can use Axe to play fake chords: play the notes of a chord in succession quickly with no breaks in between.

There is sadly no volume control on calc, afaik (even with assembly)

Actually, volume can be controlled (to a point) by altering the duty cycle.  The duty cycle is how long the pulse lasts relative to the period of the pulses.  If anyone remembers the old Freq() command when it first came out in Axe, it was much softer because it had a much smaller duty cycle.  I do not have a control for the volume in the Freq() command because it would make the routine much larger.  Some sound players even have a separate routine for every possible volume in the duty cycle to speed it up for some decent quality audio.

Yeah, with assembly all we are doing is sending value through the link port in a certain way -- the port isn't built with a way to recieve or handle volume requests

EDIT: oh and the chords sound decent, but not perfect -- kinda spasmism if you listen closely, but otherwise acceptable

Really? I migth have done something wrong, or maybe it was Wabbitemu, because in my case it sounded like static or something metallic when alternating between notes too fast . It has been ages since I last tried, though.