nstag, 23. November 2010 19:08
> An: Ingo
> Cc: pd-list@iem.at
> Betreff: Re: AW: [PD] Strange behavior between [phasor~] and [creb/blosc~]
>
> Have a look here:
>
> http://en.flossmanuals.net/PureData/DCOffset
>
> My basic formula is
>
> [*~ 2]
> |
> [-~ 1]
>
t: Dienstag, 23. November 2010 14:49
An: pd-list@iem.at
Betreff: Re: [PD] Strange behavior between [phasor~] and [creb/blosc~]
Did you try graphing the output of the combined [phasor~] objects? To
me, it seems likely that the lack of a zero-crossing in the [phasor~]
waveform would create a large amount of
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 15:18 +0100, Ingo wrote:
> Hi Derek,
>
> that's it !!! I just subtracted 0.5 from the [phasor~] outlet and now it
> behaves as expected. Thank you!
>
> Now I have to find all the [phasor~] objects in my patches und change it
> there. Using [blosc~] is just too expensive for
ulations.
Ingo
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: pd-list-boun...@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-boun...@iem.at] Im Auftrag von
Derek
> Holzer
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. November 2010 14:49
> An: pd-list@iem.at
> Betreff: Re: [PD] Strange behavior between [phasor~] and [creb/blos
Did you try graphing the output of the combined [phasor~] objects? To
me, it seems likely that the lack of a zero-crossing in the [phasor~]
waveform would create a large amount of DC offset, and perhaps that is
what you are hearing. [creb/blosc~], [osc~] and pretty much any other
audio waveform
he time they are not turned down in level.
Ingo
Von: pd-list-boun...@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-boun...@iem.at] Im Auftrag von
Ingo
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. November 2010 10:42
An: pd-list@iem.at
Betreff: [PD] Strange behavior between [phasor~] and [creb/blosc
Hi everybody,
I just noticed a very strange behaviour concerning [phasor~].
It started when I wanted to replace [phasor~] with [creb/blosc~]. Normally
they should sound pretty much the same except for the obvious aliasing
problem of [phaser~].
Then I noticed that in some cases they didn't
