well, tabread4c~ is far from perfect, it has the same aliasing problem than tabread4~ and it create more distortion than tabread4~. (but in lower frequency).
one told me that modern commercial audio software can use 32 points shannon interpolation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker–Shannon_interpolation_formula i'd like to try that... it will be more expensive, but this is negligible on recent hardware, and sound quality worth it. so, for now, i'll try different interpolation schematic, and we will see latter what to use... cyrille Roman Haefeli a écrit : > On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 06:52 +0100, Andy Farnell wrote: >> Yes that'right, hmm I guess I knew that but said it in a woolly way >> >> Amend that to >> >> [tabread~] - "play back at exactly" the original rate >> [tabread4~] - "play back at close to the orginal rate" >> [tabread4c~] - "play back with wider transposition" > > > i don't see any justification to keep [tabread4~] in this list. cyrille > once mentioned that his new class isn't computationally more expensive. > if there is a difference between [tabread4~] and [tabread4c~], then it > is, that [tabread4c~] is _better_ than [tabread4~] (according to some > previous posts regarding this subject). > the only good reason to keep [tabread4~] in pd is to keep backwards > compatibility with patches that exploit [tabread4~]'s wierd behaviour, > imo. > > roman > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
