Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > I think the key to this discussion of -1 to 1 vs 0 to 1 is what people > are most likely going to use them for, and what makes the most sense in > that context. Of course, ideally, it wouldn't create arbitrary > restrictions either. For example, Cyrille and I make basically > everything 0 to 1 in the mapping library since it makes things really > easy to do without sacrificing much flexibility.
I think, that's very sensible. > I think the two ranges for this discussion separate signals versus > controls. A sawtooth~ is a signal that is meant to be listened to, so > it would good from -1 to 1. A phasor~ is the exact same shape as a > sawtooth~, but it is meant to be a control, so it is 0 to 1. You could > easily switch the two with some basic math, but most of the time, you'll > want your controls to be 0 to 1 and your signals -1 to 1. A similar > pair would be square~ (signal) and pwm~ (control). I'm with you here except maybe at the object names, but these are just taste-related and maybe educational/language differences - I don't necessarly think of square~ as signal and pwm~ as control (The nusmusk-pwm~ is a "signal", too) I'd just like to add that converting a "control signal" like the phasor~ to a "synth oscillator" takes more than just moving its center to 0, especially bandlimiting. OTOH a bandlimited saw or square generally is useless for control operations because it "wiggles" too much at the jump points. Anyway I've now read the Pd-FLOSS manual page at http://en.flossmanuals.net/PureData/SquarewavesAndLogic and found, that it just tries to explain some general mechanisms to generate square-ish signals from a phasor~. As the basic techniques are the same for "synth oscillators" and "control signals", I think keeping it in a range from 0-1 is sensible. Ciao -- Frank _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
