well, I feel it sounds better, but I wonder why... I guess it's in the object level, so we could just clone them :)
2016-02-16 16:16 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com:
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> 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:
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 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 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:
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 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: > >> 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> 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>: >>> >>>> 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: >>>> >>>>> 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> 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>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >