Cool, but you see, I suspected SuperCollider would do things such as clip
the phase from phase 0.001 to 0.999 to prevent a harsh sawtooth, and also
fade in (ramp) one block when a Synth starts.
I feel it has many such details to make it sound "smoother" and nicer, it
also seems to be a little quieter
well, I kind like this, if I have other patches to compare, would you like
to check? :)
cheers
2016-02-16 14:53 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrof...@gmail.com>:
> OK, here's the updated trials.pd with appropriate phase relationships. The
> pulse train in SC3 is control rate, so there might be a ramp between values
> that I'm missing. You can add it and see if it makes a difference.
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Matt Barber <brbrof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The documentation is poor on both sides. I had to go into the source code
>> to find out a couple of things.
>> On Feb 16, 2016 9:45 AM, "Alexandre Torres Porres" <por...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> yeah, just checked them and they sound quite the same now ;) I wonder
>>> how I screwed up
>>>
>>> 2016-02-16 12:39 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrof...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, the phase relationships didn't match those in the SC3 code. I'll
>>>> send the updated patch when I can get to my computer.
>>>> On Feb 16, 2016 9:36 AM, "Alexandre Torres Porres" <por...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > OK, I had to adjust the Pd patch a little to get it to match the
>>>>> SC3 code.
>>>>>
>>>>> why? what do you mean? was it wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-02-16 6:07 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrof...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, I had to adjust the Pd patch a little to get it to match the SC3
>>>>>> code. I've made an A/B test: one is SC3 and the other is the matching Pd
>>>>>> patch. See if you can tell which one is which, and why you answered the
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> you did. I went fast and made them 44.1kHz 16-bit; you'll have to live
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> it. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <
>>>>>> por...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> correct code
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {VarSaw.ar(LFPulse.kr(1, 0, 0.3, 50, 50), 0, LFTri.ar(1, 0, 0.5,
>>>>>>> 0.5))!2}.play
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2016-02-16 2:54 GMT-02:00 Alexandre Torres Porres <por...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> well, while we're at it, here's the patches for you to check and
>>>>>>>> speculate :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SuperCollider Code;
>>>>>>>> VarSaw.ar(LFPulse.kr(1, 0, 0.3, 50, 50), 0, LFTri.ar(1, 0, 0.5,
>>>>>>>> 0.5))!2.play
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2016-02-16 2:45 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrof...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is difference between the sound of [triangle~] and
>>>>>>>>> VarSaw, it might actually be in the way phase is generated. The
>>>>>>>>> algorithms
>>>>>>>>> themselves are pretty much the same, but while VarSaw makes its own
>>>>>>>>> single-precision phase by simply subtracting 1 when an increment
>>>>>>>>> takes it
>>>>>>>>> past 1.0 (using a conditional on each sample), [triangle~] is a
>>>>>>>>> waveshaper
>>>>>>>>> that is fed phase. Pd's phasor is a little idiosyncratic, using a
>>>>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>>>>> bit-hacking to unwrap phase (the Höldrich method), which is supposed
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> perform a bit faster than a conditional, and it's inside not just
>>>>>>>>> [phasor~]
>>>>>>>>> but all the oscillator objects. If I remember correctly it can be
>>>>>>>>> prone to
>>>>>>>>> phase drift over time, but don't quote me on that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres <
>>>>>>>>> por...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I still believe differences between Pd and SC depend on other
>>>>>>>>>> technical details than the ones presented, because similar objects
>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> triangle~ and VarSaw will just sound quite differently, hence it may
>>>>>>>>>> rely
>>>>>>>>>> on subtleties inside the objects themselves. And I'm not talking
>>>>>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>>>>> "cultural" use which is something I believe makes quite a difference
>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>> in the Pd x Max world (when they both sound quite similar).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2016-02-15 13:54 GMT-02:00 Andy Farnell <
>>>>>>>>>> padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Good list of technical peculiarities Claude. For me, the "sound"
>>>>>>>>>>> is those
>>>>>>>>>>> quirks combined with how Chris describes a "cultural" or
>>>>>>>>>>> "contextual" use.
>>>>>>>>>>> I used to be great at knowing the sound of software or hardware
>>>>>>>>>>> sources
>>>>>>>>>>> and could spot Reaktor, or a Roland analogue in moments. But
>>>>>>>>>>> emulations
>>>>>>>>>>> got better and my ears got older, and maybe I began to care less
>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>> implementation and more about artistic intent. As Chris says,
>>>>>>>>>>> different tools tend to make you think and work in certain
>>>>>>>>>>> patterns,
>>>>>>>>>>> and I think it is this more than anything that constitutes a
>>>>>>>>>>> "sound".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
