Hi Cyrille, Thanks for the reply - very interesting!
On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 23:08 +0100, cyrille henry wrote: > >> i think if the input can only be a phasor you can : > >> -differenciate the phasor (with a biquad: out(t) = in(t) - in(t-1) ) > >> -ignore negative value (with a test on a expr~ object by exemple) > >> -multiply by scale factor > >> -integrated this value (with a biquad: out(t) = in(t) + out(t-1) ) > >> -wrap the result > > > > I tested this (attached) and it kind of works, but it doesn't seem to > > be phase synced, so one could just as well use a second phasor~. Or > > did I do something wrong? > > > well, the max~ 0 is not the perfect way to remove negative value. it would be > beter to replace the negative value with the previus value. Are you saying that if one replaced the negative value with the previous value, the phasors _would_ be phase synced? It would certainly be possible to do this if I implemented it as an external. > if you want exactly f1/f2 = 1.5, then you can use a lower frequency phasor > and generated 2 phasor at 2f and 3f. so phasor 2 frequency / phasor 3 will be > a 1.5. In the short term, this 'low frequency master phasor' solution is the one I will go for, but it would be nice to make a generic phase-synchronous phasor rate scalor at some point. Maybe it isn't possible, but I'm sure it is what Max/MSP's rate does. Jamie -- www.postlude.co.uk _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
