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.uk> wrote:



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.

1) Flip it around zero with [*~ -1]
2) Invert arithmetically wrt 1.0 using [sig~ 1][-~]
3) Get the [min~] or the [max~] wrt another value
4) Clamp at a value using [clip~] ... is special case of (3)
5) Shift by an amount using [-~] or [+~]
6) 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