Hi Roman, all,
Here's discussion that caught my eye some while back
http://www.devmaster.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5784
There's been several good posts on music-dsp and dsp-related.com
over the years dealing with both sides, high accuracy and high
effciciency. In the end, of course, it's a
Hi,
I always blamed the sound card and/or headphones, as I have only done
this test on a laptop with a shitty integrated soundcard (and I
usually don't work with synthesis, nor with such refined processing to
require to care too much about subtleties)... but now I doubt.
The attached patch is
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 11:38 +0100, matteo sisti sette wrote:
Hi,
I always blamed the sound card and/or headphones, as I have only done
this test on a laptop with a shitty integrated soundcard (and I
usually don't work with synthesis, nor with such refined processing to
require to care too
i would assume, that you _are_ triggering a hardware issue. your
description sounds like your hardware is running with 16 bit depth. at
some point 32float values are converted to the resolution of the
hardware. in case your hardware really is running only 16bit, then it is
very likely that
Tube amps sounds better because the electron flow into the tube always
make a kind of interpolation when the signal comes to distortion.
Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
To muddy the waters a bit, the most 'correct' sound isn't always the
best sound. Consider so many people's love of tube
When will they come up with the PD to CSound python conversion script?
Drizzly drol.. if it's ever possible
have a nice day
km
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Mar 8, 2008, at 11:00 PM, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Andy Farnell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You take as many sines as the system will handle, typically
a thousand or so, and sum them. All must start on exactly the
same phase. Now, if we had a series of
Well, why couldn't Pd be as clean, processors are fast enough these
days, and one could always crank up the sample rates of their DSP
blocks. Isn't the internal resolution at least 32bit anyway (is it
64bit under any circumstances?)
cheers,
~brandon
On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy
Why can't we simply have the option to turn up (or turn down!) the
resolution of the objects we already have? This is considerably less
complex.
~Brandon
On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It could be, it's just a matter of someone writing the code :)
That's
You can already do that by setting the sample rate as high or low as
your hardware will support and using the [block~] object to set the
control rate to the resolution you want.
It would be interesting to try to build pd using doubles instead of
floats, but it would necessitate changing the
Most Pd objects (externals) use t_sample to define what gets passed to input
and output. At compilation time, the externals code includes m_pd.h, which
defines t_sample as a float. Which makes sense on 32-bit processors--Pd for
64-bit processors could potentially redefine t_sample as a double,
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It could be, it's just a matter of someone writing the code :)
well, it's almost done.
within the next month or 2, i will hopefully have all patches ready, to
make Pd fully double floating point enabled (that is: you have to
chose at compile time; all externals
Charles Henry wrote:
Most Pd objects (externals) use t_sample to define what gets passed to
input and output. At compilation time, the externals code includes
m_pd.h, which defines t_sample as a float. Which makes sense on 32-bit
processors--Pd for 64-bit processors could potentially
Martin Peach wrote:
It would be interesting to try to build pd using doubles instead of
floats, but it would necessitate changing the size of atoms...
see my other post: this is basically done.
on 64bit OS the size of atoms would stay the same (it's at least 64bit
because of the pointers)
On Sunday 09 March 2008 19:59, Charles Henry wrote:
Pd for 64-bit processors could potentially redefine t_sample as
a double, with no loss in performance (with nearly twice as much memory
usage).
Mno...
It just so happens that x87s always compute a double, so it makes little
difference
I looked for some sounds that demonstrate the difference of oscillator
accuracy. All I could find are these two snips from tracks, but it's a
fair comparison because;
1) Functions of Time (1996) An all Csound composition.
http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/FunctionsOfTime-track3.mp3
2) Look
Yeah but mp3s always sound muddy to me...
Martin
Andy Farnell wrote:
I looked for some sounds that demonstrate the difference of oscillator
accuracy. All I could find are these two snips from tracks, but it's a
fair comparison because;
1) Functions of Time (1996) An all Csound
Hallo,
Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's
comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both
are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while
the Pd one sounds a bit
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's
comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both
are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500
marius schebella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's
comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to
On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500
marius schebella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's
comparable because
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It would be very nice to have a cleansound library of dsp objects,
perhaps ported from Csound.
You can already use [csoundapi~], which comes with most csound
varieties, to access anything in csound from pd.
Martin
On Mar 8, 2008, at 5:30 PM, Martin Peach wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It would be very nice to have a cleansound library of dsp
objects, perhaps ported from Csound.
You can already use [csoundapi~], which comes with most csound
varieties, to access anything in csound from pd.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Andy Farnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You take as many sines as the system will handle, typically
a thousand or so, and sum them. All must start on exactly the
same phase. Now, if we had a series of _all_ frequencies it would
give us an impulse, but instead
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mar 8, 2008, at 5:30 PM, Martin Peach wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It would be very nice to have a cleansound library of dsp
objects, perhaps ported from Csound.
You can already use
Come on guys, I thought it was the artist not the tool, that was
responsible for making amazing sounds. Maybe since PD is free so more
artists get a chance to use it?
When will they come up with the PD to CSound python conversion script?
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Chuckk Hubbard
[EMAIL
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 01:28 +, Damian Stewart wrote:
hey,
i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name)
and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a
fuller sound with the oscillators, he said.
i hadn't really thought about
Roman Haefeli wrote:
hey funny... i also heard people saying something similar the other way
around.
since the same digital algorithm produces the same results on two
different machines or in two different softwares, i think there are only
very esoteric reasons to believe, that one sounds
the phase using Audacity, to be honest, but I don't think
this makes the test irregular :-)
ciao
libero
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:57:49 +
From: Damian Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: PD-List pd-list
reversed the phase using Audacity, to be honest, but I don't think
this makes the test irregular :-)
ciao
libero
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:57:49 +
From: Damian Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max
Quoting marius schebella [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
on the hardware side: da converters can make a difference. (is it
overall true that pd runs on cheaper hardware, using cheaper
digital-analog converters creating a richer, more distorted sound?).
now that is an interesting observation.
probably Pd
Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: PD-List pd-list@iem.at
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Roman Haefeli wrote:
hey funny... i also heard people saying something
On Mar 7, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 01:28 +, Damian Stewart wrote:
hey,
i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is
his name)
and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than
Max - a
fuller sound with the
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in
double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences between
them, but I am guessing that those differences are inside the brain,
rather than outside :).
yes, that seems obvious to me
On Mar 7, 2008, at 7:33 PM, marius schebella wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in
double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences
between them, but I am guessing that those differences are inside
the
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Mar 7, 2008, at 7:33 PM, marius schebella wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in
double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences
between them, but I am guessing that those
ok, so you are right. my reading capabilities get worse from day to day...
one more question. I read
Pd (c) 1997-2005 The Regents of the University of California?
which means the regents of the UC own the rights on Pd???
marius.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Mar 7, 2008, at 9:14 PM,
There is test I use to evaluate one important aspect of
all synthesis systems. It tests oscillator accuracy.
The patch is by Jean Claude Risset and is an additive concept
he called frequency domain grating, and is analogous to diffraction
grating used in spectroscopy.
Here is Hartmanns paper
hey,
i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name)
and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a
fuller sound with the oscillators, he said.
i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my
Pd patches sound
what I experience sometimes when I do very basic stuff like using
phasors, is that I hear weird comb filtering of my environment after I
put down my headphones. similar as if you look into bright light and
then close the eyes, and you still see a review-image.
regarding the difference between
40 matches
Mail list logo
