On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 12:38 -0600, David Powers wrote:
On 3/14/07, Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 04:46 -0600, David Powers wrote:
I found those, but are they really band-limited? I'm fairly sure I hear ugly digital artifacts in the saw.
what artifacts? can you elaborate that a bit more?
Hi, listen at exactly 474 hz, and tell me if you think something sound funny to you, I guess...
here 474Hz sound ok, but i still could only test on my built-in card with only 48KHz available. i will test later again on my rme at 44.1kHz.
(the oscillators in my example are the same ones in the original example. Sometimes there's table not found errors in PD though).
yeah, above 16kHz. and also in my patch i noticed a bit of aliasing in these high area. maybe it would be better to switch to an [osc~], cause the waveform in the according table is a sine anyway.
my patch has still one little problem with cpu-optimaziation. i think the best would be to split the whole frequency range in three areas: in the low area a raw square, in the middle area the bandlimited version and it the are, where no harmonics could be played anyway, it could switch to an [osc~]. i'd like to put these three parts in separate subpatches, so that the unnecessary parts could be switched of. the problem is, when the parts are switched off, the are not in phase anymore, when they are switched on, so at least the [tabosc4~], [phasor~] and the [osc~] should always run, only for keeping the phase. could that be optimized in some way? is it possible to retrieve the phase of these objects? of course the [phasor~] could always run, but is a [phasor~] cheaper than an [osc~]?
roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de