On 23.06.2014, at 06:37, robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com
wrote:
the other thing Urs brought up for discussion is an iterative and recursive
process that converges on a result value, given an input. i am saying that
this can be rolled out into a non-recursive equivalent,
On 23 June 2014 17:11, Ivan Cohen ivan.co...@orosys.fr wrote:
Hello everybody !
I may be able to clarify a little the confusion here...
Thanks Ivan for your great email contribution. I will only reply to
the one and only correction / clarification to what I have posted
previously.
The
Always good to have a nice interaction about the theoretical basis of
scientific work, and related practical implementations, isn't it ?
TO add a little positive note to the whole story, after maybe having
bashed some peoples' work in a theoretically limited corner too much
for their
On 6/23/14 1:18 AM, Andrew Simper wrote:
On 23 June 2014 12:37, robert bristow-johnsonr...@audioimagination.com wrote:
Andy and Urs, i have been making consistent and clear points and challenges
and the response is not addressing these squarely.
let's do the Sallen-Key challenge, Andy.
On 23 June 2014 19:43, Andrew Simper a...@cytomic.com wrote:
On 23 June 2014 17:11, Ivan Cohen ivan.co...@orosys.fr wrote:
Hello everybody !
I may be able to clarify a little the confusion here...
Thanks Ivan for your great email contribution. I will only reply to
the one and only
Here is a quote from one of my first replies to you Robert:
--
of course a VCF driven by a constantly changing LFO waveform (or its digital
model) is a different thing. i was responding to the case where there is an
otherwise-stable filter connected to a knob. sometimes the knob gets
Ok, but where does
On 23 June 2014 22:59, robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com wrote:
On 6/23/14 10:50 AM, Andrew Simper wrote:
Ok, I'm still stumped here. Can someone please show me a reference to
how the bi-linear transform is created without using trapezoidal
integration?
Several things:
On Jun 22, 2014, at 7:07 AM, music-dsp-requ...@music.columbia.edu wrote:
...
Out of interest, what is your latency measurement method of choice?
...
Do you think they notice below 2ms?
Ross.
Nothing fancy for measurement; split an impulse to 2 channels of a DAW; one
Hey guys,
I tend to lurk in the background on this list, but the topic of delay /
latency is one that I am particularly interested in.
A colleague and I did a small study years ago... perhaps this can serve as
some actual data to get the conversation going.
There are some things I would do
Not sure about what you mean here, but to get these approximations, you
use the Taylor series of exp(x) and ln(x) for x - 0 :
exp(x) = sum_(k=0 to N) x^k / k !
exp(x) = 1 + x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + ...
ln(x) = 2 * sum(k=0 to N) 1 / (2k+1) ((x - 1) / (x + 1))^(2k-1)
ln(x) = 2 ( (x - 1)/(x+1) +
Ok, so what I'm really asking is why did someone (Tustin?) decide to
make this substitution?
exp (sT) = exp (sT/2) / exp (-sT/2)
which can be written:
exp (sT/2 - (-sT/2))
On 23 June 2014 23:58, Andrew Simper a...@cytomic.com wrote:
Ok, but where does
On 23 June 2014 22:59, robert
On 6/23/14 11:58 AM, Andrew Simper wrote:
Ok, but where does
On 23 June 2014 22:59, robert bristow-johnsonr...@audioimagination.com wrote:
On 6/23/14 10:50 AM, Andrew Simper wrote:
Ok, I'm still stumped here. Can someone please show me a reference to
how the bi-linear transform is created
Here is a reply from Ivan to the old thread, that I am including here
in this new thread:
On 24 June 2014 00:25, Ivan Cohen ivan.co...@orosys.fr wrote:
Not sure about what you mean here, but to get these approximations, you use
the Taylor series of exp(x) and ln(x) for x - 0 :
exp(x) =
I plan to build a synth for musical voice. Looking for good prior work in this.
Our target is Indian classical vocal but work on any vocal synth should help
us. It's a back burner project, we're in no rush.
Rohit Agarwal, Khitchdee
Sent from my Samsung Corby
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp
Hi,
I have been reading literature in order to understand the technics involved in
computer audio generation. I want to build the basic building blocks of a sound
synthesizer rather than using a lib or framework because I really want to
understand it's inner mechanics.
Currently I have The
Let me express my agreement with the nice choice of subject: the
simulation of tube amps. Of course during and before the advent of solid
state systems, some people may have laughed about the idea alone
(because tubes sound so annoying after while), but in the context of
guitars, it's usually
-- cytomic -- sound music software --
On 23 June 2014 21:58, robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com wrote:
On 6/23/14 12:43 AM, Andrew Simper wrote:
On 23 June 2014 11:25, robert bristow-johnsonr...@audioimagination.com
wrote:
On 6/22/14 10:48 PM, Andrew Simper wrote:
I think
On 6/23/14 3:39 PM, Bogac Topaktas wrote:
On Mon, June 23, 2014 7:37 am, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
the other thing Urs brought up for discussion is an iterative and
recursive process that converges on a result value, given an input. i am
saying that this can be rolled out into a
rbj
Urs
Regarding the iterative method, unrolling like you did
y0 = y[n-1]
y1 = g * ( x[n] - tanh( y0 ) ) + s
y2 = g * ( x[n] - tanh( y1 ) ) + s
y3 = g * ( x[n] - tanh( y2 ) ) + s
y[n] = y3
is *not* what I described in general.
it *is* precisely equivalent to the example you were
On 23.06.2014, at 19:18, robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com
wrote:
it *is* precisely equivalent to the example you were describing with one more
iteration than you were saying was necessary.
Now I'm really angry I wasted so much time. An example is just that, an
example. I
On 24 June 2014 06:37, Urs Heckmann u...@u-he.com wrote:
On 23.06.2014, at 19:18, robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com
wrote:
it *is* precisely equivalent to the example you were describing with one
more iteration than you were saying was necessary.
Now I'm really angry I
Hi folks,
This is generally a friendly, tolerant list. I feel like this conversation
is getting a bit snippy, on all sides. Please consider letting it cool off
for a bit to try and reset the tone.
Let's give each other the benefit of the doubt and assume good intentions -
- we're all here to
On 6/23/14 11:37 PM, Douglas Repetto wrote:
Hi folks,
This is generally a friendly, tolerant list. I feel like this conversation
is getting a bit snippy, on all sides.
i was getting snippy, but i kept the subject about the technical.
didn't bring up anything personal about anybody. i tried
I'm not sure that there's any one integrated resource for this, but
you're right that it is an important problem.
Probably the most common approach is to pre-generate lookup tables for
a square wave built up from harmonics under the nyquist limit. You'll
probably want several different lookup
On 6/23/14 11:55 PM, Russell McClellan wrote:
I'm not sure that there's any one integrated resource for this, but
you're right that it is an important problem.
Probably the most common approach is to pre-generate lookup tables for
a square wave built up from harmonics under the nyquist limit.
25 matches
Mail list logo
