Hi Christof,

Thanks!

Don't forget the guard point, which could also be set explicitly to 1.0

christof

Matt

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 4:29 AM Christof Ressi <info@christofressi.com> wrote:

Hi Matt,

thanks for chiming in!

Christof:

This should ensure that the table is symmetric, unless the underlying cos() function is broken :)

I think the underlying cos() function is dependent on architecture and compiler?

Yes. cos() is a library function, so the output depends on the particular C library implementation, the compiler and the also architecture. I would still expect it to be (reasonably) symmetric, but I haven't really checked.

Even with the new cosine table, on my machine the zero crossings have a (very tiny) residual, so it's sitting at a very small DC offset.

You're right, I didn't consider the peaks and zero-crossings! The values of 1/2 PI, PI and 3/2 PI cannot be accurately represented as floating point numbers, so the result of cos() may be a bit off.

I think we should explicitly set these points:

cos_newtable[COSTABLESIZE / 4] = 0.0;		/* 1/2 PI */
cos_newtable[COSTABLESIZE / 2] = -1.0; 		/* PI */
cos_newtable[COSTABLESIZE / 4 * 3] = 0.0; 	/* 3/2 PI */

@Miller: what do you think? IMO we should make the cos table as good as we can, so we won't have any regrets :)

The rest of the function looks symmetric, though, and certainly much, much better than the previous one.

Thanks for checking!

Christof

_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev