16 Feb
2016
16 Feb
'16
7:25 p.m.
if you want to compare the "sound" of SC and pd, please use band limited operator, or both will sound bad.
cheers c
Le 16/02/2016 19:16, Matt Barber a écrit :
Sure, send 'em along. It's good for learning. I've heard so many times that "SC3 just sounds better," and I'm a skeptic overall. I have a few comparisons of my own to try soon.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com mailto:porres@gmail.com> wrote:
Cool, but you see, I suspected SuperCollider would do things such as clip the phase from phase 0.001 to 0.999 to prevent a harsh sawtooth, and also fade in (ramp) one block when a Synth starts. I feel it has many such details to make it sound "smoother" and nicer, it also seems to be a little quieter well, I kind like this, if I have other patches to compare, would you like to check? :) cheers 2016-02-16 14:53 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com>>: OK, here's the updated trials.pd with appropriate phase relationships. The pulse train in SC3 is control rate, so there might be a ramp between values that I'm missing. You can add it and see if it makes a difference. On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com>> wrote: The documentation is poor on both sides. I had to go into the source code to find out a couple of things. On Feb 16, 2016 9:45 AM, "Alexandre Torres Porres" <porres@gmail.com <mailto:porres@gmail.com>> wrote: yeah, just checked them and they sound quite the same now ;) I wonder how I screwed up 2016-02-16 12:39 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com>>: Yeah, the phase relationships didn't match those in the SC3 code. I'll send the updated patch when I can get to my computer. On Feb 16, 2016 9:36 AM, "Alexandre Torres Porres" <porres@gmail.com <mailto:porres@gmail.com>> wrote: > OK, I had to adjust the Pd patch a little to get it to match the SC3 code. why? what do you mean? was it wrong? 2016-02-16 6:07 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com>>: OK, I had to adjust the Pd patch a little to get it to match the SC3 code. I've made an A/B test: one is SC3 and the other is the matching Pd patch. See if you can tell which one is which, and why you answered the way you did. I went fast and made them 44.1kHz 16-bit; you'll have to live with it. :) On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com <mailto:porres@gmail.com>> wrote: correct code {VarSaw.ar(LFPulse.kr(1, 0, 0.3, 50, 50), 0, LFTri.ar(1, 0, 0.5, 0.5))!2}.play 2016-02-16 2:54 GMT-02:00 Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com <mailto:porres@gmail.com>>: well, while we're at it, here's the patches for you to check and speculate :) SuperCollider Code; VarSaw.ar(LFPulse.kr(1, 0, 0.3, 50, 50), 0, LFTri.ar(1, 0, 0.5, 0.5))!2.play 2016-02-16 2:45 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com>>: If there is difference between the sound of [triangle~] and VarSaw, it might actually be in the way phase is generated. The algorithms themselves are pretty much the same, but while VarSaw makes its own single-precision phase by simply subtracting 1 when an increment takes it past 1.0 (using a conditional on each sample), [triangle~] is a waveshaper that is fed phase. Pd's phasor is a little idiosyncratic, using a kind of bit-hacking to unwrap phase (the Höldrich method), which is supposed to perform a bit faster than a conditional, and it's inside not just [phasor~] but all the oscillator objects. If I remember correctly it can be prone to phase drift over time, but don't quote me on that. On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com <mailto:porres@gmail.com>> wrote: I still believe differences between Pd and SC depend on other technical details than the ones presented, because similar objects like triangle~ and VarSaw will just sound quite differently, hence it may rely on subtleties inside the objects themselves. And I'm not talking about the "cultural" use which is something I believe makes quite a difference even in the Pd x Max world (when they both sound quite similar). cheers 2016-02-15 13:54 GMT-02:00 Andy Farnell <padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk <mailto:padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk>>: Good list of technical peculiarities Claude. For me, the "sound" is those quirks combined with how Chris describes a "cultural" or "contextual" use. I used to be great at knowing the sound of software or hardware sources and could spot Reaktor, or a Roland analogue in moments. But emulations got better and my ears got older, and maybe I began to care less about implementation and more about artistic intent. As Chris says, different tools tend to make you think and work in certain patterns, and I think it is this more than anything that constitutes a "sound". cheers Andy _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list