Jonathan's right,

In Pd (vanilla 0.46-4 at least) both [cos~] and [osc~] use the same cos lookup table. Only [osc~] is a signal generator, and [cos~] the raw 'lookup'. Therefore there shouldn't be any difference between [phasor~] -> [cos~] and [osc~] if the phase is equal.

Check the attached patch, I can't hear any difference when toggling between the two.

@Seb, would it be possible for you to implement [abs~] and [wrap~]?

Cheers,
Joe

On 24 August 2015 at 15:32, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list <pd-list@lists.iem.at> wrote:
Clarification: when I say you can't substitute "one" for the other, I mean trying to substitute [osc~] for [cos~].




On Monday, August 24, 2015 10:29 AM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika@yahoo.com> wrote:


From what I recall

[osc~]

is the same as

[phasor~]
|
[cos~]

So while there may be some trivial instances where you can substitute one for the other, generally you can't.  For example-- imagine having some more tilde objects between the [phasor~] and the [cos~] above.  In that case you cannot get the same signal using [osc~].  (Or at least it's not obvious to me how one would do that.)

Furthermore, the right inlet of [osc~] is a control inlet, while the inlet for [cos~] is a signal inlet.

Most of this info should be in the help patches.  (At least the ones I made for Pd Extended.)

-Jonathan



On Monday, August 24, 2015 10:19 AM, Julian Brooks <jbeezez@gmail.com> wrote:


Hey Seb,

Good to hear from you...

Does [osc~] take arguments? In my test when I gave the patch an [osc~ 0] I got an error in the console saying '0' not understood and I presumed that was my argument being spat back.

I can't really explain why it doesn't sound right to be honest, this is why I'm here asking:).

I need to do some more coding and get back to you on that one.

Regards,

Julian



On 24 August 2015 at 15:10, s p <sebpiq@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Julian,

I've never used [cos~], can you explain to me why an [osc~] with the correct phase cannot do the trick?

Cheers

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Julian Brooks <jbeezez@gmail.com> wrote:
Some good stuff here, thanks people.

[osc~] doesn't appear to take arguments so that's out.
I don't doubt Alexandre's ears or thoroughness but in this instance,when replacing [cos~] with [osc~] there's a big difference in the sound.
Alexandros - thanks for the sketch, yes it does make sense, webpd has no [until] or [cos].
Joe- nice implementation, again unfortunately there's no [abs~] or [wrap~].

What I do think from the hints and suggestions given is that I've got enough to be getting on with to make something approximately close and hopefully interesting.

Thanks all for suggestions so far,

Julian

On 24 August 2015 at 10:30, Joe White <white.joe4@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Julian,

I've attached an optimised implementation for [cos~] that we've been using for Heavy. It's an approximate taylor series expansion but it should be much faster than just using cosf(). Hopefully webpd supports [abs~] and [wrap~].

Cheers,
Joe

On 24 August 2015 at 09:18, Alexandros Drymonitis <adrcki@gmail.com> wrote:
what about this?

[table_size(
|
[until]
|
[f]x[+ 1]
|
[t f f]__________
|                         |
[/ table_size]      |
|                         |
[* twoPi]             |
|                         |
[cos]                  |
|                         |
[tabwrite table name]


well, ASCII patches don't look so good, but I hope you get the picture.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com> wrote:
cause I made some tests, [osc~] will give the same result as [cos~]... 

2015-08-24 3:26 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com>:
> Unfortunately [osc~] doesn't have the tonal quality I'm after

how is that?

2015-08-23 17:35 GMT-03:00 Julian Brooks <jbeezez@gmail.com>:
Alexandre & Alexandros,

Cheers for pitching in.

It's for a random bleepy patch. 
Unfortunately [osc~] doesn't have the tonal quality I'm after - good idea though.

On 23 August 2015 at 20:53, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com> wrote:
i do realize that, but who knows what he needs this for, it may work... :)

2015-08-23 16:37 GMT-03:00 Alexandros Drymonitis <adrcki@gmail.com>:


On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com> wrote:
you can treat [osc~] as [cos~]

just give it a frequency of "0" and use the phase inlet as the angle input (from 0 to 1). 
But the phase inlet of [osc~] is a control inlet, and [cos~] takes signals..



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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




--
Sébastien Piquemal

 ----- @sebpiq
 ----- http://funktion.fm


_______________________________________________
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