I can imagine pulse-wave LFOs that need correct timing over some long time period but don't mind length-jitter on individual pulses
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 1:52 PM Dario Sanfilippo <sanfilippo.da...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 at 19:40, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 11/26, Julius Smith wrote: >> > >> > Sure, that sounds like efficient new expanded capabilities to me. >> > I am curious to know what the driving application was for that one? >> >> I have no idea ;) >> >> But at the same time I have no idea what people do with ba.pulse(p) (which >> truncates 'p' to int), I know almost nothing about the audio processing >> and >> absolutely nothing about the audio synthesis. >> > > I often use it to get the magnitude response plot of filters while > changing params, so in that case it doesn't matter much if the period is > truncated. I have a pulse function that I use to trigger grains in a > granulator and, for that, I check the first diff of a phasor for float > periods. > > I know that using the phasor is more expensive but I like that negative > periods give you the anti-pulse function. :-) > > Ciao, > Dario > > >> All I can say is that if I send the output from "process = pulsef(P)" to >> the >> soundcard it does not sound nice, but I can certainly hear the difference >> between P == 441.0 (100Hz with SR=44100) and P == 441.9 or even P == >> 441.5. >> While ba.pulse() simply truncates 441.* to the integer == 441. >> >> Oleg. >> >> -- "Anything that can be automated should optionally be"
_______________________________________________ Faudiostream-users mailing list Faudiostream-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faudiostream-users
