Slop~ _can_ be configured to be a slew limiter, or a linear low-pass filter, or various other things - the name tries to convey that its identity is in the eye o the beholder. My intention was to design the most flexible nonlinear one-pole filter I could.
But I think your "slew" object probably does need a more exact name :)
M
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:05:54PM -0300, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
Em ter, 23 de jul de 2019 ??s 19:20, Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu escreveu:
q105 is a true slew limiter but that whoever's selling it on that page misunderstood what it does.
Yeah, might as well be just that :) Nonetheless, in slop~, you have a "linear region" and the other inlets that are "asymptotic". So if you have "0" for the 3th/5th inlets and the same input value for asymptotic upwards/downwards region, you basically have a "simple" one pole filter. More precisely, something that could be implemented with fexpr~ as:
[fexpr~ $y1 + (($x1-$y1) * $f2)], where $f2 is the cuttof frequency in radians per sample.
At least that's where I got when I tried to simplify this down.
My point is that you can achieve this kind of filtering which is quite different than a slew limiter. But then, could it be a misappropriation of the object? Like, is this there not to be used on its own, but in conjunction with other parameters?
But one way or another, seems I should really change the name of my "slew" object :)
thanks