Hi Philipp, so, I checked in depth and revised your patch. Here's my take on it in a similar design of my last object.
I changed a lot of things and rewrote basically everything, so there might be something funny still and things may not match, but the basic stuff seem to be equivalent and the basic parameters like block size and delay seem to match.
anyway, this is also fully vanilla and the prototype is called [conv2~].
I am precomputing the FFT, so check it out, and also check the rest as I've changed much of your computations for something that's simpler I think.
here's the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8l85y7p1knjv2i/conv2~.zip?dl=0
cheers
Em qua, 9 de jan de 2019 às 20:46, Philipp Schmalfuß < philipp.schmalfuss@uni-weimar.de> escreveu:
yes, i get the same glitchy tone, even worse with smaller blocksizes. I wasn't aware of this, thanks for the hint! will try to fix this
Quoting Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com:
Hi, I tested your patch with the [phasor~ 5] and with [phasor~ 1] I find the issue you're bringing up gets much more evident
Em qua, 9 de jan de 2019 às 14:03, Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com escreveu:
On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 13:44 -0200, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
hmm, weird, I don't seem to find problems...
Aha? Even with attached test3.pd patch saved along the original test.pd patch? You can compare 64 to 128 and I get a glitchy tone with a frequency of 690 Hz (which seems to come from 44100/64).
Have you tried other IRs than the church.wav and IR.wav?
Roman
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list