Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I think the key to this discussion of -1 to 1 vs 0 to 1 is what people
are most likely going to use them for, and what makes the most sense in that context. Of course, ideally, it wouldn't create arbitrary
restrictions either. For example, Cyrille and I make basically
everything 0 to 1 in the mapping library since it makes things really
easy to do without sacrificing much flexibility.
I think, that's very sensible.
I think the two ranges for this discussion separate signals versus
controls. A sawtooth~ is a signal that is meant to be listened to, so
it would good from -1 to 1. A phasor~ is the exact same shape as a
sawtooth~, but it is meant to be a control, so it is 0 to 1. You could easily switch the two with some basic math, but most of the time, you'll want your controls to be 0 to 1 and your signals -1 to 1. A similar pair would be square~ (signal) and pwm~ (control).
I'm with you here except maybe at the object names, but these are just taste-related and maybe educational/language differences - I don't necessarly think of square~ as signal and pwm~ as control (The nusmusk-pwm~ is a "signal", too)
I'd just like to add that converting a "control signal" like the phasor~ to a "synth oscillator" takes more than just moving its center to 0, especially bandlimiting. OTOH a bandlimited saw or square generally is useless for control operations because it "wiggles" too much at the jump points.
Anyway I've now read the Pd-FLOSS manual page at http://en.flossmanuals.net/PureData/SquarewavesAndLogic and found, that it just tries to explain some general mechanisms to generate square-ish signals from a phasor~. As the basic techniques are the same for "synth oscillators" and "control signals", I think keeping it in a range from 0-1 is sensible.
Frank