I can imagine pulse-wave LFOs that need correct timing over some long time
period but don't mind length-jitter on individual pulses
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 1:52 PM Dario Sanfilippo
wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 at 19:40, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
>> On 11/26, Julius Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > Sure, tha
On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 at 19:40, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/26, Julius Smith wrote:
> >
> > Sure, that sounds like efficient new expanded capabilities to me.
> > I am curious to know what the driving application was for that one?
>
> I have no idea ;)
>
> But at the same time I have no idea what p
On 11/26, Julius Smith wrote:
>
> Sure, that sounds like efficient new expanded capabilities to me.
> I am curious to know what the driving application was for that one?
I have no idea ;)
But at the same time I have no idea what people do with ba.pulse(p) (which
truncates 'p' to int), I know almo
Sure, that sounds like efficient new expanded capabilities to me.
I am curious to know what the driving application was for that one?
It leads to the whole bandlimited pulse-train story...
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 8:41 AM Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/25, Julius Smith wrote:
> >
> > Hey, perfectio
On 11/25, Julius Smith wrote:
>
> Hey, perfection is often a minor step forward!
;)
> I would simply say that there is no difference for constant p, but in the
> time-varying case there is a new one-sample delay preventing bit-for-bit
> compatibility.
OK, thanks. I'll try to do something more me
Hey, perfection is often a minor step forward!
I would simply say that there is no difference for constant p, but in the
time-varying case there is a new one-sample delay preventing bit-for-bit
compatibility.
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 12:18 PM Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hi Julius,
>
> On 11/25, Juliu
Hi Julius,
On 11/25, Julius Smith wrote:
>
> I see that I am missing out by not being on Discord!
I think that all the technical questions/discussions should be moved
to the faudiostream mailing lists, in this case I would be happy to
forget about discord ;)
> I like the changes but see that the
Hi All,
I see that I am missing out by not being on Discord!
I like the changes but see that the ones depending on p are not exactly
equivalent when p is time-varying.
In general I vote for elegance and optimality over exact equivalence,
although such changes should be called out in the release n
On 11/25, Dario Sanfilippo wrote:
>
> Possibly not a big deal, but the reason why ba.pulse checks for the
> derivative is that ba.period is likely to wrap around and end up at value
> different than zero when you lower the period, which can result in missed
> pulses.
Yes, as I mentioned below the
Possibly not a big deal, but the reason why ba.pulse checks for the
derivative is that ba.period is likely to wrap around and end up at value
different than zero when you lower the period, which can result in missed
pulses.
See this example:
import("stdfaust.lib");
period(p) = %(int(p)) ~ +(1) :
10 matches
Mail list logo
