Hi Alexandre,
- Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com [2016-06-14 20:29]:
[...] I see you use fexpr~ to derive binary noise from a [noise~]. I might not be correct but I suppose that binary noise has a similar, if not the same, spectrum as re [noise~], so it could be left out to save some CPU cycles. Otherwise just multiplying [noise~] by a high factor [*~ 1e+36] and clipping it at [clip~ -1 1] might be a cheaper way to do it.
Orm's implementation of the random phase might also be cheaper than your two fexpr~ for that part. You might not have to be conservative with CPU usage in your case at all however.
I use fexpr~ for the mean filter, but I had also used sometimes biquad~ in the same way as you suggested. I think biquad~ should work with a block of 1, if not it is buggy! You can easily test it though.
It does work and might save cpu compared to fexpr~.
Note you can use other filters instead of the mean average filter. That was chosen back in the day for convenience, we have more options now, lop~ would be a nice one by the way.
Thank you! Indeed one can throw all sorts of filters in there. In my case I am trying a textbook implementation for now.
Thank you for your kind reply! Peter