Happy to help, Sam.
If interested in some technical papers, Lazzarini has written on feedback
modulations.
Personally, I would consider the emergence of non-sound, together with the
emergence of sound with turbulence, an added degree of complexity to the
behaviour of the system. But I understand
Hi, Sam. Sounds nice.
If you notice, the recursive operator is at the top of the chain, so
whatever block of code within parentheses after ~ will be in the feedback
path. The signal left of ~ is then going through. You can achieve the same
circuit by moving the feedback operator at the end as in
I made this crossfeedback synth in Faust:
import("stdfaust.lib");
process(carFreq, modFreq, modModMult, indexMult) = 0: + ~ (
(
(
(_, hslider("modModMult",100,100,1000,1):*),
hslider("modFreq",100,100,1000,1):+
):os.osc, hslider("carModMult",100,100,1000,1):*
)
,
Thank you Dario,
This is great. Adding an abs before the last osc seems to clear up the
dropouts (but also takes away a bit of the fun), so I guess it was negative
freq. The placement of the ~ is my incomplete understanding of its function
at this point. But seeing your solution clears up a lot,
>
>
> Feedback without delay of blocksize is sick. You just can’t make this circuit
> in SC.
>
This was *one* of the initial motivation of the project… ((-;
Welcome to Faust !
Stéphane
___
Faudiostream-users mailing list
Just to be precise, if you want the exact same circuit without the 0 and
the +, you can replace them with a wire, so it will be one signal feeding
back into something with one input: the wire.
process(carFreq, modFreq, multOfMod, multOfCar) = _ ~ _, multOfMod:*),
modFreq:+):os.osc,
>
> I managed to find a commit talking about the "route" primitive, but I
> couldn't find anything about "outputs": what is it?
>
> If I run
>
Look at « Inputs and Outputs of an Expression » section in
https://faustdoc.grame.fr/manual/syntax/
Stéphane
Hello!
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 17:33, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/20, Dario Sanfilippo wrote:
> >
> > I use the "ceil" function for the cond in "if" as I want _any_ non-zero
> > value to result true, whereas ba.if gives false for any fractional
> > condition < 1. I opened an issue about this
On 05/20, Dario Sanfilippo wrote:
>
> I use the "ceil" function for the cond in "if" as I want _any_ non-zero
> value to result true, whereas ba.if gives false for any fractional
> condition < 1. I opened an issue about this but I think that fixing it, if
> bad behaviour (bad if thinking of C/C++,
