Chances are Jonathan has already cleaned that up :D (Thanks for all the help
file updates J!)
On Jan 19, 2014, at 6:00 AM, pd-list-requ...@iem.at wrote:
From: Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PD] signal math explanation
Date: January 18, 2014 at 2:48:04 PM EST
To: Jonathan
!)
On Jan 19, 2014, at 6:00 AM, pd-list-requ...@iem.at wrote:
*From: *Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com
*Subject: **Re: [PD] signal math explanation*
*Date: *January 18, 2014 at 2:48:04 PM EST
*To: *Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com
*Cc: *pd-list pd-list@iem.at, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoel
] signal math explanation*
*Date: *January 18, 2014 at 2:48:04 PM EST
*To: *Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com
*Cc: *pd-list pd-list@iem.at, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoel...@iem.at
I don't know. I recall seeing it somewhere years ago.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Jonathan Wilkes jancs
Can anyone tell me what one is accomplishing when doing something like this:
[osc~ 440]
|
[+~]
|\
[+~]
|\
[+~]
|\
[+~]
In other words, the chain of [+~] that feed the previous object's output
into both inlets of the next... what does this do exactly?
Thanks,
Pall
--
On 01/18/2014 06:24 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:
Can anyone tell me what one is accomplishing when doing something like this:
[osc~ 440]
|
[+~]
|\ x1
[+~]
|\ x2
[+~]
|\ x3
[+~]
x4
In other words, the chain of [+~] that feed the previous object's output
into both
Ah... I've seen this in some of the help patches. Why would someone do it
with multiple [+~] instead of a single [*~]? There's no difference?
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:49 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoel...@iem.atwrote:
On 01/18/2014 06:24 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:
Can anyone tell me what one is
On 01/18/2014 06:59 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:
Ah... I've seen this in some of the help patches. Why would someone do it
with multiple [+~] instead of a single [*~]? There's no difference?
aesthetic reasons?
hinting at bigger structures?
but consider this: why would someone write the following
Touché :-)
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 1:15 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoel...@iem.at wrote:
On 01/18/2014 06:59 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:
Ah... I've seen this in some of the help patches. Why would someone do it
with multiple [+~] instead of a single [*~]? There's no difference?
aesthetic
On 2014-01-18 12:49, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 01/18/2014 06:24 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:
Can anyone tell me what one is accomplishing when doing something like this:
[osc~ 440]
|
[+~]
|\ x1
[+~]
|\ x2
[+~]
|\ x3
[+~]
x4
...
so you could write the patch as:
[osc~ 440]
Since you're dealing with arithmetic, it helps immensely to simplify the data
by replacing [osc~ 440] with [sig~ 1], which will just send out blocks where
every sample is 1.
The [+~] just goes through a loop every block and does addition, sample by
sample. When you don't give it an argument
Hi Pall,
Which help patches? I haven't seen a single help patch that substitutes
strings of [+~] to double the incoming signal where a simple multiplication
would do.
I have seen cascades of [+~] for additive synthesis, but that's not the same.
-Jonathan
On Saturday, January 18, 2014
I don't know. I recall seeing it somewhere years ago.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Pall,
Which help patches? I haven't seen a single help patch that
substitutes strings of [+~] to double the incoming signal where a simple
multiplication
12 matches
Mail list logo
