Re: [music-dsp] Trapezoidal integrated optimised SVF v2
Andrew Simper wrote: On 6 November 2013 22:13, Theo Verelst theo...@theover.org wrote: That's a lot of approximations and (to me !) unclear definitions on a row. Ok, please let me know the first one you don't understand and I'll break it down for you! The only approximation made is the numerical integration scheme used ... Did you even read what I wrote, or are you really that dumb ? T.V. -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
Re: [music-dsp] Trapezoidal integrated optimised SVF v2
Dear Theo, I found Andrew's postings to be very interesting and helpful. Respectful disagreement is welcome. Insults are not. Please stop. Thank you, Phil Burk On 11/7/13 8:22 AM, Theo Verelst wrote: most of what you're oresenting is boring old crap, that isn't worth working on unless you'd actually understand some of the theory and relevant tunings involved. Clearly you don't. -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
Re: [music-dsp] Trapezoidal integrated optimised SVF v2
Phil Burk wrote: Dear Theo, I found Andrew's postings to be very interesting and helpful. . Fine. He insulted run of the mill academic EE insights from decades ago, i merely stated facts, which should be respected, but here are still not. The theory is quite right, and I've taken the effort of correcting a lot of misinterpretations. I suppose that isn't popular. T.V. -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
Re: [music-dsp] Trapezoidal integrated optimised SVF v2
+1 On 7 Nov 2013, at 17:16, Phil Burk philb...@mobileer.com wrote: Dear Theo, I found Andrew's postings to be very interesting and helpful. Respectful disagreement is welcome. Insults are not. Please stop. Thank you, Phil Burk On 11/7/13 8:22 AM, Theo Verelst wrote: most of what you're oresenting is boring old crap, that isn't worth working on unless you'd actually understand some of the theory and relevant tunings involved. Clearly you don't. -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
Re: [music-dsp] Trapezoidal integrated optimised SVF v2
I too appreciate Andrew's input. I'm sure that most here do as well. On Nov 7, 2013, at 9:11 AM, STEFFAN DIEDRICHSEN sdiedrich...@me.com wrote: I think, that’s not fair. Andrew has created some great products, just look at his website http://www.cytomic.com. To me, it’s an really interesting way to create algorithms by fusing things, that come from MNA, with standard DSP stuff and some creative math. Steffan On 07.11.2013, at 17:22, Theo Verelst theo...@theover.org wrote: most of what you're oresenting is boring old crap, that isn't worth working on unless you'd actually understand some of the theory and relevant tunings involved. Clearly you don't. -- -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
Re: [music-dsp] Trapezoidal integrated optimised SVF v2
Theo, How can one insult theory? If you think, Andrew is wrong, it won’t hurt to get the details. Now, you’re just insulting Andrew, which is not nice nor helpful. Steffan On 07.11.2013, at 18:29, Theo Verelst theo...@theover.org wrote: Phil Burk wrote: Dear Theo, I found Andrew's postings to be very interesting and helpful. . Fine. He insulted run of the mill academic EE insights from decades ago, i merely stated facts, which should be respected, but here are still not. The theory is quite right, and I've taken the effort of correcting a lot of misinterpretations. I suppose that isn't popular. T.V. -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
Re: [music-dsp] Trapezoidal integrated optimised SVF v2
+1! On 07/11/2013 17:30, Victor Lazzarini wrote: +1 On 7 Nov 2013, at 17:16, Phil Burk philb...@mobileer.com wrote: Dear Theo, I found Andrew's postings to be very interesting and helpful. Respectful disagreement is welcome. Insults are not. Please stop. Thank you, Phil Burk -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
Re: [music-dsp] Trapezoidal integrated optimised SVF v2
On 11/7/13 9:29 AM, Theo Verelst wrote: Phil Burk wrote: Dear Theo, I found Andrew's postings to be very interesting and helpful. . Fine. He insulted run of the mill academic EE insights from decades ago, i merely stated facts, which should be respected, but here are still not. The theory is quite right, and I've taken the effort of correcting a lot of misinterpretations. I suppose that isn't popular. i find some interest i Andrew's analysis (and i've seen it longer ago when we were both corresponding with someone from Abelton about all this), and, although i have inferred *no* insult at all from Andrew's analysis, i have to agree a lot with Theo if the word insulted is perhaps replaced by ignored. this is essentially an issue of mapping s to z and, while i understand that Bilinear Transform ain't the only way to do it, i also understand what the issues are using other methods, such as Euler's forward method or Predictor-Corrector or Impulse Invariant. and there are ways to directly compare. what Andrew is doing is about the same way we were dealing with modeling continuous-time analog circuits in class in the 1970s. i try to think about it in a more unified manner. coefficients for the SVF or any other 2nd-order form (like lattice and ladder) can be directly mapped to and from the coefficients of the DF1 or DF2. the form has nothing to do it how coefficients are determined. except for numerical issues regarding quantization related to *both* the coefficient values and the *signal* values. *that* is the reason for considering other forms than the Direct Forms. there are other issue to consider (like computational burden). but there is no necessary reason to be deriving coefficients directly for SVF because it can do something that the DF1 cannot regarding getting you the frequency response that you desire. my $0.02 . this isn't comp.dsp and i am much less interested in getting into any fights here about technical detail than is my interest in such at comp.dsp . (but i would like to maybe bring up a big philosophical disagreement i am having/exploring right now with the creator of JUCE about what it means to be modular and OOP. it's like we look at the same object and Jules says it's white and i say it's black. it's a little similar the fundamental disagreement i have with the creator of MATLAB about the utility of integer indices below 1. i don't want to join a JUCE forum and do it, but i might be willing to invite Jules to this forum and slug it out here. or maybe it can be cross-posted to both forums.) -- r b-j r...@audioimagination.com Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
Re: [music-dsp] Trapezoidal integrated optimised SVF v2
If popularity is a major point here: good manners are popular. They are simple to be put to good use, all of the time, under all circumstances. A typical application for them would be to keep criticizm or disagreement constructive. Inversely, bad manners have proven to obscure what otherwise may have been considered a point being made. /th Am 07.11.2013 um 18:29 schrieb Theo Verelst: Phil Burk wrote: Dear Theo, I found Andrew's postings to be very interesting and helpful. . Fine. He insulted run of the mill academic EE insights from decades ago, i merely stated facts, which should be respected, but here are still not. The theory is quite right, and I've taken the effort of correcting a lot of misinterpretations. I suppose that isn't popular. T.V. -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
Re: [music-dsp] Trapezoidal integrated optimised SVF v2
On 8/11/2013 4:29 AM, Theo Verelst wrote: Fine. He insulted run of the mill academic EE insights from decades ago, i merely stated facts, which should be respected, but here are still not. The theory is quite right, and I've taken the effort of correcting a lot of misinterpretations. I suppose that isn't popular. Hi Theo, I read your initial response to Andrew and it seems to me that it is *you* who is ignoring what he posted. Of course Andrew is making assumptions and of course this is all old news from an EE methods standpoint. But I think Andrew has been very clear on his sources. What you seem to be missing are the benefits of what Andrew is doing. To me these include: 1. Novelty in the world of open-access music-dsp algorithms that people can actually read about, use and learn from. Many people here don't have EE degrees -- and they certainly don't need one to follow the maths in Andrew's paper. Wasn't it you who just the other day criticised someone else for not providing a theoretical basis for their work? 2. Numerical performance even when using 32 bit floats (did you look at Andy's graphs of numerical performance vs DF1, DF2?). 3. Topology preservation: if you want to emulate a non-linear analog SVF without moving up to numerical integration techniques Andy's filter allows simple introduction of *approximate* static non-linearities. This is also generally useful for efficient implementation of musical filters, that often include static nonlinearities. 4. Stability under audio-rate time-varying coefficients. We recently discussed that you don't get this with Dattoro approved DF-1, DF-2, see Laroche's JAES paper on BIBO stability for details. Sure you get it with Lattice but that doesn't give you topology preservation if your source model is an SVF. Each of these points alone is interesting. When taken together I think that what Andy has posted is a really a useful contribution. It has got a better result than the status-quo. Personally I don't think this is really about the coefficient calculations, which I agree can be unified with higher-end s-plane/z-plane theory, it's about the combination of benefits above. In light of all this I really fail to see how your criticisms are even valid, let alone useful. Now, I do have one thing I would like to see: and that is a mathematical proof that point (4) above is actually true for this topology. Ever since I read the Laroche BIBO paper it scared the crap out of me to be modulating any IIR filter at audio rate without a trusted analysis. My 2 cents, Ross. -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
