Git revert done. Stéphane
> Le 18 avr. 2020 à 12:16, Bart Brouns <b...@magnetophon.nl> a écrit : > > Hi Oleg, > > > Before I wrote this code I tested yours and got silence. > That test was somehow flawed; I tried again just now and it works as expected. > Sorry for the noise. > > After the silent test, I looked into the commit history, saw that the init > got removed and found out it did make noise with the init. > After I "fixed" the oscillator, it peaked at -2 and +2, so I added the > ''*0.5''. > At that point I had little faith left in the code, and the 2 outputs and the > mem's seemed unneeded, so I removed them. > > So all in all a commit based on a broken test (or two) and ignorance, sorry! > > Someone with access, please revert that commit! > > And again, Oleg, sorry for the noise! > > > Cheers, > Bart. > > > > Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes: > >> Hi Bart, >> >> I am not sure I understand you, but I'll try to answer anyway ;) >> Please correct me. >> >> On 04/16, Bart Brouns wrote: >>> >>> Somehow the initial value of `u` got lost in the last commit to this >>> function: >>> https://github.com/grame-cncm/faustlibraries/commit/ba34ca657a8c98efc804061c5b2e1d4f7e6bc6ff. >> >> I don't think it was lost, this code deliberately tries to not use >> "impulse" for initialization of delay line. >> >> See https://sourceforge.net/p/faudiostream/mailman/message/36700742/ >> >> (See also https://sourceforge.net/p/faudiostream/mailman/message/36534365/) >> >> but again, perhaps I misunderstood your concerns. >> >>> The oscillator doesn't seem to work without it. >> >> why do you think it doesn't ? >> >>> What are the 2 outputs for? >>> I removed the first one, cause the second one was easiest to match with >>> os.osc. >> >> Cough. It outputs the "cosine,sine" pair. Like, say, os.oscrq(f). >> This looks useful, why do you think the 1st output is pointless? >> Why do you think it should match os.oscsin ? >> > >>> Why was there a 1 sample delay on both outputs? >> >> See above, to ensure that the very 1st output is (1,0), this doesn't >> penalize the generated code. >> >>> Why was this osc twice as loud as os.osc? >> >> could you explain what do you mean? >> >>> Is that what you mean by "more precise"? >> >> Not at all, >> >>> How is the generated code worse? >> >> please look at the generated code before/after this patch? >> >> Oleg. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Faudiostream-users mailing list > Faudiostream-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faudiostream-users _______________________________________________ Faudiostream-users mailing list Faudiostream-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faudiostream-users
