I know, it really demystifies the whole Uncertainty Principle haze of confusion. After learning that it's just a result of tradeoffs with mathematical measurements, it doesn't seem like such a deep and powerful revelation of the universe. Good thing we can still be baffled by String Theory.
~Kyle
On 9/15/06, Jarbas Jacome jandila@gmail.com wrote:
Hello! Hey thank you for this reference to Hisenberg principle! Very excite!!! I never attempted to this relation. Now, finally I understand the principle better hehe thanks j.jR.
On 9/15/06, Kyle Klipowicz kyleklip@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Daniel~
It sounds like you're trying to use the phase vocoder, which is a bit different than the Kraftwerk-style vocoder. I may be wrong about that. But you shouldn't have to use a FFT to do vocoding in this style.
The traditional vocoder model takes a bank of tuned bandpass filters to detect amplitudes across the modulator spectrum, and then use these amplitudes to drive another set of bandpass filters to shape the spectrum of your carrier signal.
Tom Erbe of UCSD has a nice example patch that will probably be more of what you want to do. You can download it here: http://music.ucsd.edu/~tre/171/w8a-vocoding.pd , and see more cool things from the course that he teaches at his site: http://music.ucsd.edu/~tre/ .
BTW, the reason that you must use certain blocksizes for FFT work is that the FFT actually operates on signal vectors, transforming a fixed-time amplitude vector into a fixed-time frequency vector. You could do a FFT on a 64-sample signal vector (Pd's native blocksize), but its resolution would be pretty crappy, so that's why its better to use a larger block size. (This whole concept is actually the root of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle [http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HEISENBERG/Chapter3.html], since better time resolution gives worse frequency resolution, and vice versa.)
I hope that helps!
~Kyle
On 9/15/06, mami music mami.music@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all i made a vocoder which spectrum is borrowed from an FM synth and the amplitude is from the line lin through an adc~. I have not been able to make it work completely in realtime. I´ve tried some stuff and it´s still with latency. How can i make it work real time? (my soundcard is an m-audio firewire 4-10)
what ive tried: Basicly i have used the audio configuration and placed the latency value to 0:seems to mess up the dsp and work bad. The lowest latency i´ve got to achiev without damaging the audio is 50 ms. The vocoder process i borrowed from one of the FFT examples included in PD extended. I have tried to change the settings of the block~ object in the subpatch that does all the vocoder+fft processing, but still nothing.
can anybody give me a hint and also refresh the relationshib between block~ and all the fft process being made there?
thankz!
daniel
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
--
http://theradioproject.com http://perhapsidid.blogspot.com
(((())))(()()((((((((()())))()(((((((())()()())()))) (())))))(()))))))))))))(((((((((((()()))))))))((()))) ))(((((((((((())))())))))))))))))))__________ _____())))))(((((((((((((()))))))))))_______ ((((((())))))))))))((((((((000)))oOOOOOO
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Kyle Klipowicz wrote:
I know, it really demystifies the whole Uncertainty Principle haze of confusion. After learning that it's just a result of tradeoffs with mathematical measurements, it doesn't seem like such a deep and powerful revelation of the universe.
It should instead appear as a deeper and more powerful revelation of the universe. Just because now you understand it doesn't mean it's not deep, it just means that you are deeper :)
Good thing we can still be baffled by String Theory.
AFAIK, String Theory is still baffling itself; it's more of a mathematical refactoring of previous theories, than a scientific theory, due to the lack of experiments to test the theory.
Why is it a good thing that we're still baffled by String Theory? Suppose we nuke String Theory. There are still a lot of things to be baffled about. Which of those things should get the most attention?
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
AFAIK, String Theory is still baffling itself; it's more of a mathematical refactoring of previous theories, than a scientific theory, due to the lack of experiments to test the theory.
There's a missing sentence in here. I meant to say that it's bad that String Theory predicts only that we might be one kind of universe out of a few zillions, if there's no way to figure out which of those zillion universes we're in, experimentally.
The other String Theory, which is something that interests me more, is how to gently introduce a string type in Pd in the most integrated and rewarding way. ;-) However, it doesn't seem like it's for this year either. :-/
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
On 9/15/06, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
The other String Theory, which is something that interests me more, is how to gently introduce a string type in Pd in the most integrated and rewarding way. ;-) However, it doesn't seem like it's for this year either. :-/
There should be a String Theory external, which passes data to the same patch in another universe.
On 9/15/06, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Kyle Klipowicz wrote:
I know, it really demystifies the whole Uncertainty Principle haze of confusion. After learning that it's just a result of tradeoffs with mathematical measurements, it doesn't seem like such a deep and powerful revelation of the universe.
It should instead appear as a deeper and more powerful revelation of the universe. Just because now you understand it doesn't mean it's not deep, it just means that you are deeper :)
It highlights the fact that the thing observed is never the thing-in-itself, for one. That no matter how well you know any thing or system, it's still only your own mind that you are knowing. I mean, the principle applies to every measurement, not just scientific ones. Kind of solipsistic. For me, it also brings to mind the question of the fundamental unit of matter. If there is such a thing, and it can never be accurately measured, then whether it is "particle" or "wave" isn't knowable or relevant. If it's the structure within which we evolved since forever, how can it be dissected into other things? When some thing can't be explained in terms of other things, people get uncomfortable. They resort to giving names, like Adam.
-Chuckk
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
It highlights the fact that the thing observed is never the thing-in-itself, for one. That no matter how well you know any thing or system, it's still only your own mind that you are knowing.
No, because it's not your own mind that you are observing. You really get to know things and systems.
It's the concept of the thing-in-itself that has to be abandoned; and then, knowing something is redefined as having understood that thing through the relations that you can have with it and make it have with other things.
However, in the process of eliminating the concept of the thing-in-itself, THEN what you are doing is getting to know your own mind (and other minds). It's a process of understanding why you had that opposition between thing-in-itself and relations-between-things, how that opposition is not that useful and how your mental model can become simpler by eliminating it.
Something like the concept of the thing-in-itself can appear in mathematics and computer programming, but that's because those things focus on invention rather than discovery. (ok, discovery can happen there, but it always relies on things that have been purely invented before.)
If there is such a thing, and it can never be accurately measured, then whether it is "particle" or "wave" isn't knowable or relevant.
Right: and by abandoning the stereotypes of "particle" and "wave" you are getting to know yourself (or how thought processes work). Analogies have to be abandoned when they stop working but we are often attached to them more than what we should.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
On 9/15/06, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
However, in the process of eliminating the concept of the thing-in-itself, THEN what you are doing is getting to know your own mind (and other minds). It's a process of understanding why you had that opposition between thing-in-itself and relations-between-things, how that opposition is not that useful and how your mental model can become simpler by eliminating it.
Fair enough.
Something like the concept of the thing-in-itself can appear in mathematics and computer programming, but that's because those things focus on invention rather than discovery. (ok, discovery can happen there, but it always relies on things that have been purely invented before.)
I think mathematics and programming appear that way because they deal with things that are imaginary. In reality, five oranges, for instance, are not equal to another five oranges. However many electrons it takes to trigger some switch, they're not the same thing as another bunch of that many electrons. The thing that can be measured and equated is the event, which doesn't exist. This even could be, for instance, the triggering of some switch, which could be the building block of a program. Programs and equations don't exist, though, they occur. You could just as well say the uncertainty principle doesn't apply to birthdays, because today either is or isn't your birthday.
If there is such a thing, and it can never be accurately measured, then whether it is "particle" or "wave" isn't knowable or relevant.
Right: and by abandoning the stereotypes of "particle" and "wave" you are getting to know yourself (or how thought processes work). Analogies have to be abandoned when they stop working but we are often attached to them more than what we should.
Mmm, how thought processes work. Between Gestalt perception and the magical number seven, I have half of my understanding of music. The other half being harmonic and subharmonic series.
-Chuckk
Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
I think mathematics and programming appear that way because they deal with things that are imaginary. In reality, five oranges, for instance, are not equal to another five oranges. However many electrons it takes to trigger some switch, they're not the same thing as another bunch of that many electrons.
Actually the weird thing with elementary particles is that unlike oranges they are absolutely identical and can exchange places. I think this could be how quantum gravity works - by exchange tunneling. Martin
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
On 9/15/06, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
Something like the concept of the thing-in-itself can appear in mathematics and computer programming, but that's because those things focus on invention rather than discovery. (ok, discovery can happen there, but it always relies on things that have been purely invented before.)
I think mathematics and programming appear that way because they deal with things that are imaginary.
"Imaginary" matches my use of the word "invention".
In reality, five oranges, for instance, are not equal to another five oranges.
No, it depends on the meaning of the word "equal" - but that's a human concept: the oranges don't care about being equal or not. Likewise there is a hierarchy of equal signs in math, for when you want to deal with different levels of likeness. For example, modulo arithmetic introduces a different equality which is more slack than conventional equality.
The thing that can be measured and equated is the event, which doesn't exist.
Whether or not something "really exists" is a meaningless question. "real existence" does not exist. It's just a matter of pushing one's own definition of the word. I could try to come up with a more useful definition (words should be given useful definitions) and I can't think why it's of any importance to think of events as non-existing.
And then I'm not sure about your meaning of the word "event" either...
And I thought that events are things that are localized in time... silly me ;-)
Programs and equations don't exist, though, they occur.
If you're going to say things like that, I'm going to argue that you're just a bunch of molecules. Your distinction between existence and occurrence is useless.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
Aaaaarg. This is starting to sound like the microsound list.
Model vs. View. Model vs. View...
~Kyle
On 9/15/06, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
On 9/15/06, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
Something like the concept of the thing-in-itself can appear in mathematics and computer programming, but that's because those things focus on invention rather than discovery. (ok, discovery can happen there, but it always relies on things that have been purely invented before.)
I think mathematics and programming appear that way because they deal with things that are imaginary.
"Imaginary" matches my use of the word "invention".
In reality, five oranges, for instance, are not equal to another five oranges.
No, it depends on the meaning of the word "equal" - but that's a human concept: the oranges don't care about being equal or not. Likewise there is a hierarchy of equal signs in math, for when you want to deal with different levels of likeness. For example, modulo arithmetic introduces a different equality which is more slack than conventional equality.
The thing that can be measured and equated is the event, which doesn't exist.
Whether or not something "really exists" is a meaningless question. "real existence" does not exist. It's just a matter of pushing one's own definition of the word. I could try to come up with a more useful definition (words should be given useful definitions) and I can't think why it's of any importance to think of events as non-existing.
And then I'm not sure about your meaning of the word "event" either...
And I thought that events are things that are localized in time... silly me ;-)
Programs and equations don't exist, though, they occur.
If you're going to say things like that, I'm going to argue that you're just a bunch of molecules. Your distinction between existence and occurrence is useless.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
-
Chuckk Hubbard -
Kyle Klipowicz -
Martin Peach -
Mathieu Bouchard