Slop~ _can_ be configured to be a slew limiter, or a linear low-pass filter, or various other things - the name tries to convey that its identity is in the eye o the beholder. My intention was to design the most flexible nonlinear one-pole filter I could.
But I think your "slew" object probably does need a more exact name :) M On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:05:54PM -0300, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: > Em ter, 23 de jul de 2019 ??s 19:20, Miller Puckette <[email protected]> escreveu: > > > q105 is a true slew limiter but that whoever's selling it > > on that page misunderstood what it does. > > > Yeah, might as well be just that :) Nonetheless, in slop~, you have a > "linear region" and the other inlets that are "asymptotic". So if you have > "0" for the 3th/5th inlets and the same input value for asymptotic > upwards/downwards region, you basically have a "simple" one pole filter. > More precisely, something that could be implemented with fexpr~ as: > > [fexpr~ $y1 + (($x1-$y1) * $f2)], where $f2 is the cuttof frequency in > radians per sample. > > At least that's where I got when I tried to simplify this down. > > My point is that you can achieve this kind of filtering which is quite > different than a slew limiter. But then, could it be a misappropriation of > the object? Like, is this there not to be used on its own, but in > conjunction with other parameters? > > But one way or another, seems I should really change the name of my "slew" > object :) > > thanks _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
