Thanks for your response. I tried to apply the branching principal using the equation from the [exact-ead~] by having the envelope go to 1 and then to 2 instead of 0, using min 1 and max 1 to create a branch, using an expression to convert the ascending numbers over 1 into descending numbers under 1, and then jumping to 0. I think the problem is that, during the switches, two 1s are sent at the same time, leading to a 2 (as seen in the graph), where I actually need a 0...
-Stephan
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.ukwrote:
You might be able to easily get that behaviour by quickly editing the example I gave you.
The maths is really geometry.
There are a few things that can be done as time domain transforms when thinking about envelopes and suchlike in this way.
- Flip it around zero with [*~ -1]
- Invert arithmetically wrt 1.0 using [sig~ 1][-~]
- Get the [min~] or the [max~] wrt another value
- Clamp at a value using [clip~] ... is special case of (3)
- Shift by an amount using [-~] or [+~]
- Scale by some factor with [*~]
IIRC the idiom for a two stage envelope like that is to use [min~]/[max~] to create a split point and treat each of the two branches differently (you can do piecewise waveform construction the same way).
If you want time symmetry then have the [vline~] go to 1.0 and back to [0.0] and just use one of the branches.
On Mon, 30 May 2011 18:45:55 +0200 Stephan Elliot Perez dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings, Thank you for your responses. I tried your suggestion, hardoff, and the result is the attached [ead-reverse~]. Unfortunately, the expression behaves differently with this [vline~]-construction as with the
[phasor~].
Here, if 1 is entered into the right input of [expr~], the result is an envelope whose steepness becomes exponentially smaller while ascending
and
exponentially greater while descending (if near 0, the opposite form is produced and values between 1 and 0 produce a divided, confused form). I however wish to produce an envelope that becomes exponentially steeper
both
ascending and descending. My problem with this [expr~] as well as with Mr. Farnell's patches
is
that I do not quite understand the math behind them. Any ideas?
Best regards, Stephan Elliot Perez
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:54 PM, hard off hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
instead of the [phaser~], send a [line~] (or [vline~]) signal.
for example:
[1, 0.5 500, 0 1000 500( | [vline~]
like most of my patches, i don't think i originally made that one,
someone
else posted it, and i just copied. ;) must have been a long time ago though, cos i barely remember it.
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Stephan Elliot Perez < dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings, I wish to produce a wave form with the opposite form of the
normal
ead~ wave (the curves become exponentially steeper instead of
flatter),
which I can achieve by entering a negative number into the phasor in
hard
off's exact-ead~ patch, which I downloaded from the archive. However,
I
still want to be able to independently change the length of the
ascent,
decline, and distance between waves as is possible with ead~. Does
anyone
know how I could do this, or possibly have access to an
abstraction-version
of ead~?
Best regards, Stephan
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list