errata" it wouldnt even be smart to repeat some stuff redundantly.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Alexandre Porres <[email protected]> wrote: > well, I totally agree with you, and that is why my stuff does not fill in > the niche of Miller's and others at all. > My stuff is for people who really had never seen anything like this, which > is practically everybody in brazil :) > > I try to put some stuff in miller's book more accessible, but most of it I > dont even bother to attempt that at all! Just the basics... > > The stuff is kinda in between Floss Manuals and Miller's book. But I dont > wish to inject the things I wrote about inside Floss Manuals at all. it > would even be smart to repeat some stuff redundantly. > > But the theory in DSP we are discussing here is really minimum, and the > math could not be any simpler, which is just the procedure of using a [+] > object, as complex as adjusting the gain with [*]. > > Since it is that basic, I dont find it intimidating at all. > > But I really hope we could all share our thoughts and ideas, and create > different materials that complement each other, and that are also coherent > with each other. > > So sorry if I looked too technical, but I still believe it could be simply > presented, and that the material could benefit from it. > > You see, DC Offset is also important to create Synthesis Control, like in > the Amplitude Modulation example. If you want to do an AM synth with [osc], > you need to adjust DC. But the procedure is really really simple. I will > work on the examples and send it to you as soon as i can. > > thanks > alex > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Derek Holzer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree with the principles of this approach, but perhaps not the >> complexity. The FLOSS Manual doesn't exist as a way to teach DSP. That's >> what Miller's stuff is for. It exists as a way to get people who are put off >> by the existing documentation, which is very very heavy in math, DSP and >> computer science. These are the people I get in my workshops every time. >> They just want to get an idea of how to do things and not be intimidated. >> Thus the emphasis on simple solutions rather than "correct" ones. >> >> If people are ready for a deeper understanding of DSP, that's where >> Miller's book, and pd-tutorial.com and the Roads CMT book and all the >> rest come in. And perhaps your Portuguese one as well. I don't want this >> book to step into a niche which already has many options, I want it to fill >> a niche which is still wide open: Pd for absolute beginners, no >> prerequisites required. >> >> D. >> >> Alexandre Porres wrote: >> >>> you know, yeah, but the thing is that phasor is not actually an oscilator >>> at all !!! >>> >>> the name actually refers to phase, and not sawtooth. >>> >>> Apart from [osc~], oscilators in puredata are basically wavetable >>> oscilators. You have objects such as [tabosc4~] and that is it. >>> What [phasor~] was designed to do is to indicate the phase of the >>> waveform on a table. So you have to adjust phsor to be compatible with the >>> table size. You do that simply by multiplying phasor (wich ramps up to one) >>> to the table size. So what it is meant to do is tell the position (or >>> "phase") in a table. That is why it goes from 0 to 1. If it did go from -1 >>> to 1, as an ocilator, then it wouldnt work that way. >>> >>> So there is a misconception of [phasor~] being a sawtooth wave generator >>> that can be misleading. As an oscilator, [phasor~] has a DC Offset. In order >>> to [phasor~] became an oscilator with no DC Offset, we have to correct it. >>> >>> Maybe it is nice to be explicit about it in Floss Manuals, and say that >>> Pd mostly works out with Table lookup oscilators, and that [osc~] is a >>> special and unique object that is meant to be a Cosine wave oscilator. >>> >>> Then, when explaining how to get other kinds of wavefroms on Pd, such as >>> sawtooth, square, triangle, we could emphasize that we are creating them, >>> and building them up with the objects we have. Thast also makes it implicit >>> that there is more than one way to di it, and that there is no official or >>> built in Square wave, for instance. >>> >>> I actually talk a lot about that on my book. And I present examples on >>> how to get a triangle waveform on a table using the sinesum comand, that is, >>> by summing up harmonics. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Alex >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Derek Holzer <[email protected] <mailto: >>> [email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Is it really DC offset when the value goes from 0 to 1 instead of -1 >>> to 1? I mean, that's the way [phasor~] comes right out of the box. >>> >>> D. >>> >>> Alexandre Porres wrote: >>> >>> >>> I tried again, and now it works much better than before... so I >>> guess there was something wrong before. >>> >>> Well Claude, it seems it almost works as the [triangle~] object. >>> >>> Do you guys know about this one? It comes in some external >>> library. >>> >>> Were you who did it anyway Claude? :) >>> >>> [triangle~] works in a similar fashion, it goes smoothly from >>> inverse sawtooth to triangle and the sawtooth depending on the >>> parameter (from 0 to 1). >>> >>> The thing is that Triangle corrects the DC Offset, which could >>> easily be done in the expr. But now I may start to sound like an >>> obssessed DC Offset maniac. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Alex >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Claude Heiland-Allen >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >>> >>> Alexandre Porres wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Claude Heiland-Allen < >>> [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] >>> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> [phasor~] [r~ shape] >>> [expr~ if($v1<$v2,$v1/$v2,(1-$v1)/(1-$v2))] >>> >>> >>> I tried that, but it didnt actually worked, I just get >>> actual >>> sawtooths, and >>> no real triangles. >>> >>> >>> Sorry for the shortness/lack of explanation, 0<shape<1, where >>> 1 for >>> phasor, 0.5 for triangle, 0 for backwards phasor. >>> >>> considering shape as a constant, obviously you get weird >>> results if >>> you modulate it, but that's half the fun: >>> >>> 0.0 <= input <= shape ~> 0.0 <= output <= 1.0 (rising >>> ramp) >>> shape <= input <= 1.0 ~> 1.0 >= output >= 0.0 (falling >>> ramp) >>> >>> Hope this helps, >>> >>> >>> >>> Claude >>> -- http://claudiusmaximus.goto10.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Alexandre Torres Porres >>> cel. (11)8179-6226 >>> Website: http://porres.googlepages.com/home >>> http://www.myspace.com/alexandretorresporres >>> >>> >>> -- ::: derek holzer ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ::: >>> http://www.vimeo.com/macumbista ::: >>> ---Oblique Strategy # 35: >>> "Consider transitions" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Alexandre Torres Porres >>> cel. (11)8179-6226 >>> Website: http://porres.googlepages.com/home >>> http://www.myspace.com/alexandretorresporres >>> >>> >> -- >> ::: derek holzer ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ::: >> http://www.vimeo.com/macumbista ::: >> ---Oblique Strategy # 87: >> "Imagine the music as a moving chain or caterpillar" >> > > > > -- > Alexandre Torres Porres > cel. (11)8179-6226 > Website: http://porres.googlepages.com/home > http://www.myspace.com/alexandretorresporres > > -- Alexandre Torres Porres cel. (11)8179-6226 Website: http://porres.googlepages.com/home http://www.myspace.com/alexandretorresporres
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
