That works very well. Good job and thanks for sharing! One minor thing jumped to my eye: Your patch uses some instances of [fexpr~] and all of them actually don't need [fexpr~] functionality. I experienced that [fexpr~] is quite expensive, which seems apparent considering it is designed for feedback algorithms. I don't know if [fexpr~] is also expensive when you use it not for feedbacks as your patch does. Anyway, you could replace them by likely less expensive [expr~] instances:
[fexpr~ $x1>=0] -> [expr~ $v1>=0] Roman On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 00:59 +0200, simon wrote: > hey miller and list, > > > find attached a version that works beautifully. it's a dirty hack without > upsampling but it works extremly well. don't ask me why, i have no idea. > > thanks for all the help miller, really appreciate it! and thanks for pd in > general :-) > > cheers, > > simon > > On Apr 27, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Simon Iten wrote: > > > sorry this one went off-list :-) > > > > > > On 27 Apr 2014, at 19:05, simon <itensi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> sure, > >> > >> here is the version with biquad in a subpatch with a block opject to > >> upsample. probably i'm doing something wrong, i just copied from the block > >> help-patch. > >> > >> <sinetosawtoothupsample.pd> > >> > >> On Apr 27, 2014, at 5:48 PM, Miller Puckette wrote: > >> > >>> Drat, I don't have any explanation for this... can you send me the patch > >>> again? > >>> cheers > >>> M > >>> > >>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 05:44:22PM +0200, simon wrote: > >>>> hmm, changing change to biquad does also not work. i mean it does as > >>>> long as i don't upsample in the subpatch. as soon as i change the block > >>>> object i get square instead of pulses... > >>>> > >>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Miller Puckette wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Actually I don't know where the change~ object is from - I've nver seen > >>>>> t > >>>>> before. I would just use biquad~ 0 0 1 -1 0 (assuming that change~ > >>>>> simply > >>>>> ubtracts the previous sample from teh current one as I guessed from the > >>>>> patch :) > >>>>> > >>>>> M > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 03:40:01PM +0200, Simon Iten wrote: > >>>>>> ok tried to upsample the whole thing (after the osc~) and now change~ > >>>>>> does nothing anymore… it just spits out the same square wave i feed > >>>>>> in…clues? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 27 Apr 2014, at 13:05, Simon Iten <itensi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> crosspost! sorry about the noise. thanks for the inputs i will try to > >>>>>>> to this. not sure if i can. otherwise i will ask back if that’s ok! > >>>>>>> On 27 Apr 2014, at 13:03, Simon Iten <itensi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> so if i would measure at the peak of the sawtooth and would upsample > >>>>>>>> inside the pd patch, i would get higher resolution, right? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> any ideas how i can measure at the peak? (using the rpole output on > >>>>>>>> both samphold inputs does not work and delaying one of them is also > >>>>>>>> not working) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> i would highly recommend you try this method with your gk-3 equipped > >>>>>>>> guitar (one for each string) since you only have to cover a two > >>>>>>>> octave range per string the error is tolerable. (you can add an > >>>>>>>> offset to make it fit) > >>>>>>>> On 27 Apr 2014, at 12:56, Miller Puckette <m...@ucsd.edu> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That is an excellent, witty way to measure pulse withs using > >>>>>>>>> only tilde obects - my hat's off to you. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The methond only has limited accuracy since its measurement is in > >>>>>>>>> samples. For instance, a 1/2 cycle of a 440-hz. tone at 44.1 kHz > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> only 50 samples, so there's only 2% accuracy. That's about 1/3 of a > >>>>>>>>> half tone (30-ish cents) which would sound horribly out of tune. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There's an alternative sine-to-sawtooth recipe described here: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> http://msp.ucsd.edu/Publications/icmc10.pdf > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This is the basis of my guitar processing patch, smeck, but should > >>>>>>>>> be more > >>>>>>>>> broadly useful. But it has its own limitations: the sawtooth you > >>>>>>>>> get out > >>>>>>>>> is wiggly if the input sn't a pure sinusoid. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There's also the possibility of simply pitch tracking with > >>>>>>>>> sigmund~. Use > >>>>>>>>> a maximum frequency around 6000 and a maximum of 6 partals (default > >>>>>>>>> 50!) > >>>>>>>>> for best results. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> cheers > >>>>>>>>> M > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 11:27:33AM +0200, Simon Iten wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> dear list, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> i have a strange problem with my “sinetosawtooth” patch. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> it is basically a version of the pitch to voltage conversion used > >>>>>>>>>> in the old gr300 guitar synths from roland. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> i cut out all the clutter to make it easier to look at and > >>>>>>>>>> understand. (cut out the adaptive filtering at the input since i > >>>>>>>>>> use a sine wave for this example and not a guitar string) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> here is how it works (or should): > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -an input signal gets amplified by a large factor and clipped. > >>>>>>>>>> this squares the input. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -the square wave is converted to pulses. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -the pulses from the rising of the square wave are used to set and > >>>>>>>>>> reset an accumulating filter (rpole~) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> this results in a sawtooth wave that varies in amplitude depending > >>>>>>>>>> on the frequency of the input. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -a sample and hold samples the peak of the sawtooth and holds it > >>>>>>>>>> until the next peak occurs. this, after a conversion gives us the > >>>>>>>>>> input frequency. yeah! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> in the example patch i used the falling edges of the square > >>>>>>>>>> wave to trigger the sample and hold. this samples the sawtooth > >>>>>>>>>> amplitude after half the rising. (this is also why i have 22050 > >>>>>>>>>> in fexpr~ and not 44100) i could not figure out how to sample the > >>>>>>>>>> peak of the sawtooth, so suggestions here are very welcome. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> now to the problem: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> the extracted frequency does not exactly correspond to the input > >>>>>>>>>> frequency. it is pretty close at low frequencies but gets worse at > >>>>>>>>>> higher frequencies. the factor is not constant. at even higher > >>>>>>>>>> frequencies (around 5000 hertz) the reported frequency gets > >>>>>>>>>> totally out of control. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> i first thought this is because the samphold~ object is > >>>>>>>>>> inaccurate. but i then saw that the sawtooth wave from the rpole~ > >>>>>>>>>> object has no constant amplitude even with the input frequency not > >>>>>>>>>> changing. so it seems that either rpole~ or change~ is not > >>>>>>>>>> accurate. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> or the problem is that i sample in the middle of the rising and > >>>>>>>>>> not at the top ( as described earlier) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> attached the sinetosawtooth patch. set your sound card to 44100 or > >>>>>>>>>> change the 22050 in fexpr~ to half the sampling frequency. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> i would really appreciate if somebody could have a look at this, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> thanks, simon > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>> Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > >>>>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
