Greetings, Well, I used two [vline~] objects and it works fine, but only when I set the right input one of the one [expr~] to 0 and the other to 1, which both lead to division through 0 and the corresponding error message. I believe you mentioned this problem, Mr. Farnell, regarding your own patches. To what complications does this problem lead? Does anyone know how I could modify the equation to be rid of it? Why does the patch nonetheless work?
Many thanks, Stephan On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Andy Farnell <padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk>wrote: > > > [vline~] is versatile :) It can be used to solve many problems > with envelopes. Also, don't be scared to use two vlines if > it makes the problem easier to understand, their good time accuracy > ensures they will do what you expect most times. > > > On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 01:22:34 +0200 > Stephan Elliot Perez <dreamoftheshoreofanotherwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for your response. I tried to apply the branching principal using > > the equation from the [exact-ead~] by having the envelope go to 1 and > then > > to 2 instead of 0, using min 1 and max 1 to create a branch, using an > > expression to convert the ascending numbers over 1 into descending > numbers > > under 1, and then jumping to 0. I think the problem is that, during the > > switches, two 1s are sent at the same time, leading to a 2 (as seen in > the > > graph), where I actually need a 0... > > > > -Stephan > > > > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Andy Farnell < > padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You might be able to easily get that behaviour by > > > quickly editing the example I gave you. > > > > > > The maths is really geometry. > > > > > > There are a few things that can be done as time domain > > > transforms when thinking about envelopes and suchlike > > > in this way. > > > > > > 1) Flip it around zero with [*~ -1] > > > 2) Invert arithmetically wrt 1.0 using [sig~ 1][-~] > > > 3) Get the [min~] or the [max~] wrt another value > > > 4) Clamp at a value using [clip~] ... is special case of (3) > > > 5) Shift by an amount using [-~] or [+~] > > > 6) Scale by some factor with [*~] > > > > > > IIRC the idiom for a two stage envelope like that is > > > to use [min~]/[max~] to create a split point and treat > > > each of the two branches differently (you can do piecewise > > > waveform construction the same way). > > > > > > If you want time symmetry then have the [vline~] go to 1.0 > > > and back to [0.0] and just use one of the branches. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 30 May 2011 18:45:55 +0200 > > > Stephan Elliot Perez <dreamoftheshoreofanotherwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > Thank you for your responses. I tried your suggestion, hardoff, > and > > > > the result is the attached [ead-reverse~]. Unfortunately, the > expression > > > > behaves differently with this [vline~]-construction as with the > > > [phasor~]. > > > > Here, if 1 is entered into the right input of [expr~], the result is > an > > > > envelope whose steepness becomes exponentially smaller while > ascending > > > and > > > > exponentially greater while descending (if near 0, the opposite form > is > > > > produced and values between 1 and 0 produce a divided, confused > form). I > > > > however wish to produce an envelope that becomes exponentially > steeper > > > both > > > > ascending and descending. > > > > My problem with this [expr~] as well as with Mr. Farnell's > patches > > > is > > > > that I do not quite understand the math behind them. Any ideas? > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Stephan Elliot Perez > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:54 PM, hard off <hard....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > instead of the [phaser~], send a [line~] (or [vline~]) signal. > > > > > > > > > > for example: > > > > > > > > > > [1, 0.5 500, 0 1000 500( > > > > > | > > > > > [vline~] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like most of my patches, i don't think i originally made that one, > > > someone > > > > > else posted it, and i just copied. ;) > > > > > must have been a long time ago though, cos i barely remember it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Stephan Elliot Perez < > > > > > dreamoftheshoreofanotherwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Greetings, > > > > >> I wish to produce a wave form with the opposite form of the > > > normal > > > > >> ead~ wave (the curves become exponentially steeper instead of > > > flatter), > > > > >> which I can achieve by entering a negative number into the phasor > in > > > hard > > > > >> off's exact-ead~ patch, which I downloaded from the archive. > However, > > > I > > > > >> still want to be able to independently change the length of the > > > ascent, > > > > >> decline, and distance between waves as is possible with ead~. > Does > > > anyone > > > > >> know how I could do this, or possibly have access to an > > > abstraction-version > > > > >> of ead~? > > > > >> > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > >> Stephan > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > > > > >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > > > >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Andy Farnell <padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > -- > Andy Farnell <padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk> >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list