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
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
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 > >
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 >> >> >
OK, here's the updated trials.pd with appropriate phase relationships. The pulse train in SC3 is control rate, so there might be a ramp between values that I'm missing. You can add it and see if it makes a difference.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com wrote:
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 >>> >>> >> >
Cool, but you see, I suspected SuperCollider would do things such as clip the phase from phase 0.001 to 0.999 to prevent a harsh sawtooth, and also fade in (ramp) one block when a Synth starts.
I feel it has many such details to make it sound "smoother" and nicer, it also seems to be a little quieter
well, I kind like this, if I have other patches to compare, would you like to check? :)
cheers
2016-02-16 14:53 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com:
OK, here's the updated trials.pd with appropriate phase relationships. The pulse train in SC3 is control rate, so there might be a ramp between values that I'm missing. You can add it and see if it makes a difference.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com wrote:
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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Sure, send 'em along. It's good for learning. I've heard so many times that "SC3 just sounds better," and I'm a skeptic overall. I have a few comparisons of my own to try soon.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com wrote:
Cool, but you see, I suspected SuperCollider would do things such as clip the phase from phase 0.001 to 0.999 to prevent a harsh sawtooth, and also fade in (ramp) one block when a Synth starts.
I feel it has many such details to make it sound "smoother" and nicer, it also seems to be a little quieter
well, I kind like this, if I have other patches to compare, would you like to check? :)
cheers
2016-02-16 14:53 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com:
OK, here's the updated trials.pd with appropriate phase relationships. The pulse train in SC3 is control rate, so there might be a ramp between values that I'm missing. You can add it and see if it makes a difference.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com wrote:
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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
well, I feel it sounds better, but I wonder why... I guess it's in the object level, so we could just clone them :)
2016-02-16 16:16 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com:
Sure, send 'em along. It's good for learning. I've heard so many times that "SC3 just sounds better," and I'm a skeptic overall. I have a few comparisons of my own to try soon.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres < porres@gmail.com> wrote:
Cool, but you see, I suspected SuperCollider would do things such as clip the phase from phase 0.001 to 0.999 to prevent a harsh sawtooth, and also fade in (ramp) one block when a Synth starts.
I feel it has many such details to make it sound "smoother" and nicer, it also seems to be a little quieter
well, I kind like this, if I have other patches to compare, would you like to check? :)
cheers
2016-02-16 14:53 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com:
OK, here's the updated trials.pd with appropriate phase relationships. The pulse train in SC3 is control rate, so there might be a ramp between values that I'm missing. You can add it and see if it makes a difference.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com wrote:
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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
if you want to compare the "sound" of SC and pd, please use band limited operator, or both will sound bad.
cheers c
Le 16/02/2016 19:16, Matt Barber a écrit :
Sure, send 'em along. It's good for learning. I've heard so many times that "SC3 just sounds better," and I'm a skeptic overall. I have a few comparisons of my own to try soon.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com mailto:porres@gmail.com> wrote:
Cool, but you see, I suspected SuperCollider would do things such as clip the phase from phase 0.001 to 0.999 to prevent a harsh sawtooth, and also fade in (ramp) one block when a Synth starts. I feel it has many such details to make it sound "smoother" and nicer, it also seems to be a little quieter well, I kind like this, if I have other patches to compare, would you like to check? :) cheers 2016-02-16 14:53 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com>>: OK, here's the updated trials.pd with appropriate phase relationships. The pulse train in SC3 is control rate, so there might be a ramp between values that I'm missing. You can add it and see if it makes a difference. On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com>> wrote: 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto: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
They won't sound bad, necessarily; they just won't sound band limited. (Everything has its place.) On Feb 16, 2016 1:29 PM, "cyrille henry" ch@chnry.net wrote:
if you want to compare the "sound" of SC and pd, please use band limited operator, or both will sound bad.
cheers c
Le 16/02/2016 19:16, Matt Barber a écrit :
Sure, send 'em along. It's good for learning. I've heard so many times that "SC3 just sounds better," and I'm a skeptic overall. I have a few comparisons of my own to try soon.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres < porres@gmail.com mailto:porres@gmail.com> wrote:
Cool, but you see, I suspected SuperCollider would do things such asclip the phase from phase 0.001 to 0.999 to prevent a harsh sawtooth, and also fade in (ramp) one block when a Synth starts.
I feel it has many such details to make it sound "smoother" andnicer, it also seems to be a little quieter
well, I kind like this, if I have other patches to compare, would youlike to check? :)
cheers 2016-02-16 14:53 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com>>:
OK, here's the updated trials.pd with appropriate phaserelationships. The pulse train in SC3 is control rate, so there might be a ramp between values that I'm missing. You can add it and see if it makes a difference.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.commailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com> wrote:
The documentation is poor on both sides. I had to go into thesource code to find out a couple of things.
On Feb 16, 2016 9:45 AM, "Alexandre Torres Porres" <porres@gmail.com mailto: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 mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com>:
Yeah, the phase relationships didn't match those inthe 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 mailto:porres@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I had to adjust the Pd patch a little toget 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 mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com>:
OK, I had to adjust the Pd patch a little toget 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, AlexandreTorres Porres <porres@gmail.com mailto: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 AlexandreTorres Porres <porres@gmail.com mailto:porres@gmail.com>:
well, while we're at it, here's thepatches 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 mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com>:
If there is difference betweenthe 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 mailto:porres@gmail.com> wrote:
I still believe differencesbetween 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-02:00Andy Farnell <padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk mailto: padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk>:
Good list of technicalpeculiarities 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.atmailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto: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
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 17/02/2016 09:15, Matt Barber a écrit :
They won't sound bad, necessarily; they just won't sound band limited. (Everything has its place.)
I think you just found the definitive answer on the question "does XXX sound better than YYY" : nothing sound bad, everything has it's place.
the answer to Matti original question is then: board threads claiming Pd (and Max) have a distinct (and not good) sound just have people who haven’t listened to good patches.
The other reaction I expected from my question was that pd vanilla have no BL oscillator, but lot's of abstractions are available. So which one to test? The point here is that pd does not have sound, but all object does. (and back to previous ccl about good / bad patch)
One more thing : As soon as someone provide a test that show that SC BL oscillator sound better than any pd BL oscillator, i will port SC BL algorithm to a pd external. (and back to previous point and ccl)
and finally : ok, sorry, i'll stop trolling that thread.
cheers c
On Feb 16, 2016 1:29 PM, "cyrille henry" <ch@chnry.net mailto:ch@chnry.net> wrote:
if you want to compare the "sound" of SC and pd, please use band limited operator, or both will sound bad. cheers c Le 16/02/2016 19:16, Matt Barber a écrit : Sure, send 'em along. It's good for learning. I've heard so many times that "SC3 just sounds better," and I'm a skeptic overall. I have a few comparisons of my own to try soon. On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com <mailto:porres@gmail.com> <mailto:porres@gmail.com <mailto:porres@gmail.com>>> wrote: Cool, but you see, I suspected SuperCollider would do things such as clip the phase from phase 0.001 to 0.999 to prevent a harsh sawtooth, and also fade in (ramp) one block when a Synth starts. I feel it has many such details to make it sound "smoother" and nicer, it also seems to be a little quieter well, I kind like this, if I have other patches to compare, would you like to check? :) cheers 2016-02-16 14:53 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com> <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com>>>: OK, here's the updated trials.pd with appropriate phase relationships. The pulse train in SC3 is control rate, so there might be a ramp between values that I'm missing. You can add it and see if it makes a difference. On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com> <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com>>> wrote: 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 <mailto:porres@gmail.com> <mailto:porres@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com> <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:porres@gmail.com> <mailto:porres@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com> <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:porres@gmail.com> <mailto:porres@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:porres@gmail.com> <mailto:porres@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com> <mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:porres@gmail.com> <mailto:porres@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk> <mailto:padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk <mailto: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 <mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at> <mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at>> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at> <mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at>> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto: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
sounds good to me!
Thanks Miller and other coders for all your hard work! It works pretty good I must say.
-
Alexandre Torres Porres -
Billy Stiltner -
cyrille henry -
Matt Barber