Yep, this one, with a one-shot [until] through the indices into $0-cos-BAD is better than cosinesum in the previous patch, but it still drifts visibly/audibly after a couple minutes; obviously wouldn't be as much of a problem in double precision, though.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 1:53 PM Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com wrote:
Here's the demonstration. While the symmetric table will eventually drift a little, it stays stable for far longer than osc~ or cosinesum. Although, to be fair, the real test in building a cosine table from scratch in Pd would be to fill the table using [cos], walking through indices and dividing by table size to get phase.
Matt
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 1:39 PM Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com wrote:
The main reason for symmetry was stable FM synthesis – when you modulate frequency, any overall differences in the shape of the cosine wave shape accumulate quickly as an error in the osc~'s phase increment, causing significant drift in the spectrum. It's not a problem when you modulate phase directly since the modulator is decoupled from the phasor.
MB
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024, 1:24 PM Miller Puckette mpuckette@cloud.ucsd.edu wrote:
Precisely that: cache pollution in general. At some point the overall speed of the program will suffer, depending on CPU design, cache size, and probable other factors.
If the input to a cos~ object (for example) is between 1 and 2 you'll get the same loss of accuracy but still there will be rounding behavior that will (probably) give unsymmetric behavior.
Anyway, I don't remember hearing any reason why symmetry should be important in itself.
cheers
M
On 6/6/24 6:51 PM, Matt Barber wrote:
Since cos~ wraps, one could theoretically take advantage of the equal distribution of float values between 1.0 and 2.0.
Profiling a larger table would be useful – I prefer accuracy over performance in general, but I wonder where the performance hit would come from, outside of unpredictable cache misses.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024, 11:25 AM Miller Puckette mpuckette@cloud.ucsd.edu wrote:
Well, as far as I can tell making the table "symmetric" won't matter at all since, for instance, 0.1 and 0.9 won't give the same lookup values anyway because they can't themselves be represented exactly and will be truncated differently (0.1 will be more accurately represented than 0.9). On the other hand, values like 0.25 or -0.5 can berepresented
exactly so it might be worthwhile to bash true 1s, -1,s, and 0swhere
they belong in the table. Hearing that Max defaults to a ridiculously big table makes mewonder
though... first, is 2048 really enough (and at what point is therea
real performance penalty for bigger tables). And: not for this release but later perhaps, should 64-bit Pd use a bigger table? As I figure it, the 2048-point table differs from the true cosine, absolute worst case, by (2pi/2048)^2 / 8, or about 2(-19.7) - i.e., 19.7 bit accuracy. But the error is dominated by an amplitude change(the
best-matching cosine to the line-segment approximation hasamplitude
less than 1). Accounting for that and taking RMS error instead of worst-case gives an error estimate 2.7 bits more optimistic: 22.4 bits, which is close to the accuracy of a 32-bit number. I don't have my RPI3 handy (I'm on the road) but I'm now wonderingif
the default shouldn't be 4096, which would give us an additional 2 bits of goodness. Any opinions? cheers M On 6/5/24 9:35 PM, Matt Barber wrote: > A couple of things: > > 1. I'm pretty sure any error in cos at pi and 2pi will be smaller in > double precision than float's epsilon, so I don't think that there's > any need to set -1.0 and 1.0 explicitly after all except to be extra > safe. However, at pi/2 and 3pi/2 the error is still larger thanthe
> minimum normal number, so it is worth setting the zero crossings to 0.0. > > 2. For garray_dofo() there isn't a great way of using explicit 0.0 at > zero crossings without incurring an extra check, like don't add to the > sum if absolute value is less than e.g. 1.0e-10. For this,probably
> just using M_PI and incrementing integer phase like for thecosine
> table is enough. > > MB > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 2:20 PM Alexandre Torres Porres > <porres@gmail.com> wrote: > > Em qua., 5 de jun. de 2024 às 14:31, Matt Barber > <brbrofsvl@gmail.com> escreveu: > > While we're at it, I think it would be worth tuning > garray_dofo() to use the same so that sinesum and > cosinesum have the same level of accuracy, guarantees of > symmetry, etc. > > MB > > > Good catch! In fact, I think this is a great opportunity toalso
> fix this bughttps://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/371
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/37...
> which is totally related. I just reopened > https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/105 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/10...
> as well as I'm still considering the table could/should bestill
> "perfectly symmetric" considering 0 crossings and thestart/end
> points. > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 12:52 PM Alexandre Torres Porres > <porres@gmail.com> wrote: > > For the record and sake of comparison, Cyclone uses > a 16384 points table, and linear interpolation, calculated > with double precision. We did this because MAXdocuments
> it uses such a table, and we made it (well, Matt did) > simetric. > > I see Pd is doing kind of the same, huh? linear > interpolation on a table calculated with double precision. > > I see SuperCollider mentions it uses 8192 points and > linear interpolation on its oscillator. > > I guess MAX is exaggerating its table size a bit :) but I > wonder why Pd is still about to use a relativelysmaller
> table size. I'm curious to know how much an increasein
> table size actually offers a better resolution andhow
> much it ruins performance. For instance, I'm usingthe
> same as Cyclone in ELSE oscillators, could I justreduce
> it at least to 8192 points or even less and down toPd's
> 2048 size worry free? > > Thanks > > > > Em qua., 5 de jun. de 2024 às 13:28, Alexandre Torres > Porres <porres@gmail.com> escreveu: > > Nice one Matt! > > Em qua., 5 de jun. de 2024 às 08:13, ChristofRessi
> <info@christofressi.com> escreveu: > >> @Miller: what do you think? IMO weshould
>> make the cos table as good as we can,so we
>> won't have any regrets :) >> > +1000!!! >