On Apr 10, 2012, at 12:18 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On 4/10/12 1:18 PM, Nigel Redmon wrote:
>> Excellent point, Robert. (Another way to avoid it is to mask the index with
>> 0xff, if you want to keep the table 256, but not check for wrap in the
>> mid-interpolation.)
>
> sure, but tha
On 4/10/12 1:18 PM, Nigel Redmon wrote:
Excellent point, Robert. (Another way to avoid it is to mask the index with
0xff, if you want to keep the table 256, but not check for wrap in the
mid-interpolation.)
sure, but that masking is otherwise unnecessary (the initial index will
always be 0 <
Excellent point, Robert. (Another way to avoid it is to mask the index with
0xff, if you want to keep the table 256, but not check for wrap in the
mid-interpolation.)
On Apr 10, 2012, at 9:05 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> now that i think of it, if you're doing linear interpolation and
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:54 PM, robert bristow-johnson
wrote:
> Olli, could you see anything wrong with the linear interpolation in that
> snippet of code? incorrect interpolation is as bad as no interpolation.
Your updated code seems fine to me.
-olli
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing
now that i think of it, if you're doing linear interpolation and you
forget to add that extra repeated point at the end of the wavetable:
float wavetable[257]; // one extra point for doing linear interpolation
// make sure that wavetable[256] = wavetable[0]
you will
another day, another restarted computer, let's see if i can post to this
thread (that was the weirdest of problems). here's hoping my SMTP
server doesn't reject this...
it *did* reject it. Thunderbird says: "Alert. An error occurred while
sending mail. The mail server responded: 5.7.1 q3A
