>  [1] https://sourceforge.net/p/pure-data/feature-requests/16/

Not sure if I got what the request was requesting. 

"the parameter s->s_sr isn't defined properly, as 
s->s_sr=(fs*overlap) has nothing to do with the actual sampling 
interval applied to the audio data."

Is this bit just saying overlap in [block~] is done wrong and shouldn't affect sample rate?

Cause I'd be right there with it...



2013/11/26 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig@iem.at>
On 2013-11-26 11:19, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> Howdy, ever tried to compute a hann window inside a subpatch where the FFT
> is happening?
>
> And then if you're overlapping it by 4, do you see that only 1/4 of the
> cycle from [osc~] came up?
>
> That means the [osc~] frequency was 1/4 what it should be...
>
> Now, why and how does it happen? I just have no clue at all.
>

that is mainly because the "sample rate" within the overlapped canvas is
higher than the sample rate outside.
(e.g. if you are doing an overlap of 2, you are in fact processing the
double amount of data in the same time, so your overlapping "sample
rate" is 88200 if the non-overlapping rate is 44100).
the same happens if you raise the "samplerate" via "upsampling".


[osc~] uses the sample-rate information (within the signal data
structure) to calculate the phase of a cosine-table lookup.

btw, there has been a long-standing feature request [1] to extend the
signal-structure to hold both overlap factor and sample-rate, so
signal-processing objects could handle upsampling and overlapping
differently.
(speaking of which, it would also be nice, if any dsp object could have
a notion of the current overlap cycle)


gfmasr
IOhannes


[1] https://sourceforge.net/p/pure-data/feature-requests/16/


_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list