I see what you mean, Roman. So you'd need the N-size block to be processed beforehand, which would imply an N-size delay in the output, is that right? I haven't thought of it, no idea whether that could be achieved by changing the feedback period in the peak holder and/or adding a delay in the input. Maybe I'll try something later.
Cheers, Dario On 3 February 2018 at 09:33, Roman Haefeli <reduz...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sam, 2018-02-03 at 02:47 +0000, Dario Sanfilippo wrote: > > Thanks, Roman. > > > > On 2 February 2018 at 21:28, Roman Haefeli <reduz...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Fre, 2018-02-02 at 18:31 +0000, Dario Sanfilippo wrote: > > > > There's an implementation of a peak holder in this blog > > > post: http:// > > > > dariosanfilippo.tumblr.com/post/162523174771/lookahead-limiting- > > > in- > > > > pure-data. I remember testing it but please let me know if you > > > find a > > > > bug. > > > > > > Very nice write up. Thanks for sharing. > > > > > > > The current peak is replaced to whatever the input is after a > > > desired > > > > time, and the counter is reset whenever a new peak is found. It > > > > should be easy to change it so that the peak is reset > > > periodically. > > > > > > It's not exactly equivalent with what I've asked, since your > > > implementation only takes new peaks into account after the hold > > > period > > > has ended. > > Perhaps my wording in the previous email was confusing: what happens > > is that every new peak will update the output immediately, and > > whenever that happens the countdown starts so that, should no other > > peak be detected after that time, the output will be set to whatever > > the input is in that moment. > > > > > Assume an input signal consisting of a series of 1-sample > > > impulses with a period that is slightly lower than the hold period. > > > The > > > output signal has a gap before each second impulse. For the use > > > case in > > > your article (which is also the use case I'm interested in), that > > > doesn't matter much, because the peak holder signal is fed to a > > > peak > > > enveloper which somewhat masks those gaps. > > In that case, we should expect a full-amp DC out of the peak holder > > for the impulses are faster than the hold time, and that's what we > > actually get: > > > Yes, correct. If the peaks reach the same level or are higher than the > ones before, then the hold period is prolonged. But when they have less > amplitude than the ones before, gaps appear. See: > > https://netpd.org/~roman/tmp/peakholder_gaps.png > > With a true max(x[0-(-N)], a downward stairway would appear and there > wouldn't be any gaps. > > As I said, that is only small difference and for the purpose of a look- > ahead limiter it probably doesn't matter that much. > > Roman > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ > listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list