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 >> >> >