Greetings, I wish to produce a wave form with the opposite form of the normal ead~ wave (the curves become exponentially steeper instead of flatter), which I can achieve by entering a negative number into the phasor in hard off's exact-ead~ patch, which I downloaded from the archive. However, I still want to be able to independently change the length of the ascent, decline, and distance between waves as is possible with ead~. Does anyone know how I could do this, or possibly have access to an abstraction-version of ead~?
Best regards, Stephan
instead of the [phaser~], send a [line~] (or [vline~]) signal.
for example:
[1, 0.5 500, 0 1000 500( | [vline~]
like most of my patches, i don't think i originally made that one, someone else posted it, and i just copied. ;) must have been a long time ago though, cos i barely remember it.
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Stephan Elliot Perez < dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings, I wish to produce a wave form with the opposite form of the normal ead~ wave (the curves become exponentially steeper instead of flatter), which I can achieve by entering a negative number into the phasor in hard off's exact-ead~ patch, which I downloaded from the archive. However, I still want to be able to independently change the length of the ascent, decline, and distance between waves as is possible with ead~. Does anyone know how I could do this, or possibly have access to an abstraction-version of ead~?
Best regards, Stephan
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Greetings, Thank you for your responses. I tried your suggestion, hardoff, and the result is the attached [ead-reverse~]. Unfortunately, the expression behaves differently with this [vline~]-construction as with the [phasor~]. Here, if 1 is entered into the right input of [expr~], the result is an envelope whose steepness becomes exponentially smaller while ascending and exponentially greater while descending (if near 0, the opposite form is produced and values between 1 and 0 produce a divided, confused form). I however wish to produce an envelope that becomes exponentially steeper both ascending and descending. My problem with this [expr~] as well as with Mr. Farnell's patches is that I do not quite understand the math behind them. Any ideas?
Best regards, Stephan Elliot Perez
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:54 PM, hard off hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
instead of the [phaser~], send a [line~] (or [vline~]) signal.
for example:
[1, 0.5 500, 0 1000 500( | [vline~]
like most of my patches, i don't think i originally made that one, someone else posted it, and i just copied. ;) must have been a long time ago though, cos i barely remember it.
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Stephan Elliot Perez < dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings, I wish to produce a wave form with the opposite form of the normal ead~ wave (the curves become exponentially steeper instead of flatter), which I can achieve by entering a negative number into the phasor in hard off's exact-ead~ patch, which I downloaded from the archive. However, I still want to be able to independently change the length of the ascent, decline, and distance between waves as is possible with ead~. Does anyone know how I could do this, or possibly have access to an abstraction-version of ead~?
Best regards, Stephan
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
You might be able to easily get that behaviour by quickly editing the example I gave you.
The maths is really geometry.
There are a few things that can be done as time domain transforms when thinking about envelopes and suchlike in this way.
- Flip it around zero with [*~ -1]
- Invert arithmetically wrt 1.0 using [sig~ 1][-~]
- Get the [min~] or the [max~] wrt another value
- Clamp at a value using [clip~] ... is special case of (3)
- Shift by an amount using [-~] or [+~]
- Scale by some factor with [*~]
IIRC the idiom for a two stage envelope like that is to use [min~]/[max~] to create a split point and treat each of the two branches differently (you can do piecewise waveform construction the same way).
If you want time symmetry then have the [vline~] go to 1.0 and back to [0.0] and just use one of the branches.
On Mon, 30 May 2011 18:45:55 +0200 Stephan Elliot Perez dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings, Thank you for your responses. I tried your suggestion, hardoff, and the result is the attached [ead-reverse~]. Unfortunately, the expression behaves differently with this [vline~]-construction as with the [phasor~]. Here, if 1 is entered into the right input of [expr~], the result is an envelope whose steepness becomes exponentially smaller while ascending and exponentially greater while descending (if near 0, the opposite form is produced and values between 1 and 0 produce a divided, confused form). I however wish to produce an envelope that becomes exponentially steeper both ascending and descending. My problem with this [expr~] as well as with Mr. Farnell's patches is that I do not quite understand the math behind them. Any ideas?
Best regards, Stephan Elliot Perez
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:54 PM, hard off hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
instead of the [phaser~], send a [line~] (or [vline~]) signal.
for example:
[1, 0.5 500, 0 1000 500( | [vline~]
like most of my patches, i don't think i originally made that one, someone else posted it, and i just copied. ;) must have been a long time ago though, cos i barely remember it.
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Stephan Elliot Perez < dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings, I wish to produce a wave form with the opposite form of the normal ead~ wave (the curves become exponentially steeper instead of flatter), which I can achieve by entering a negative number into the phasor in hard off's exact-ead~ patch, which I downloaded from the archive. However, I still want to be able to independently change the length of the ascent, decline, and distance between waves as is possible with ead~. Does anyone know how I could do this, or possibly have access to an abstraction-version of ead~?
Best regards, Stephan
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Thanks for your response. I tried to apply the branching principal using the equation from the [exact-ead~] by having the envelope go to 1 and then to 2 instead of 0, using min 1 and max 1 to create a branch, using an expression to convert the ascending numbers over 1 into descending numbers under 1, and then jumping to 0. I think the problem is that, during the switches, two 1s are sent at the same time, leading to a 2 (as seen in the graph), where I actually need a 0...
-Stephan
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.ukwrote:
You might be able to easily get that behaviour by quickly editing the example I gave you.
The maths is really geometry.
There are a few things that can be done as time domain transforms when thinking about envelopes and suchlike in this way.
- Flip it around zero with [*~ -1]
- Invert arithmetically wrt 1.0 using [sig~ 1][-~]
- Get the [min~] or the [max~] wrt another value
- Clamp at a value using [clip~] ... is special case of (3)
- Shift by an amount using [-~] or [+~]
- Scale by some factor with [*~]
IIRC the idiom for a two stage envelope like that is to use [min~]/[max~] to create a split point and treat each of the two branches differently (you can do piecewise waveform construction the same way).
If you want time symmetry then have the [vline~] go to 1.0 and back to [0.0] and just use one of the branches.
On Mon, 30 May 2011 18:45:55 +0200 Stephan Elliot Perez dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings, Thank you for your responses. I tried your suggestion, hardoff, and the result is the attached [ead-reverse~]. Unfortunately, the expression behaves differently with this [vline~]-construction as with the
[phasor~].
Here, if 1 is entered into the right input of [expr~], the result is an envelope whose steepness becomes exponentially smaller while ascending
and
exponentially greater while descending (if near 0, the opposite form is produced and values between 1 and 0 produce a divided, confused form). I however wish to produce an envelope that becomes exponentially steeper
both
ascending and descending. My problem with this [expr~] as well as with Mr. Farnell's patches
is
that I do not quite understand the math behind them. Any ideas?
Best regards, Stephan Elliot Perez
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:54 PM, hard off hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
instead of the [phaser~], send a [line~] (or [vline~]) signal.
for example:
[1, 0.5 500, 0 1000 500( | [vline~]
like most of my patches, i don't think i originally made that one,
someone
else posted it, and i just copied. ;) must have been a long time ago though, cos i barely remember it.
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Stephan Elliot Perez < dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings, I wish to produce a wave form with the opposite form of the
normal
ead~ wave (the curves become exponentially steeper instead of
flatter),
which I can achieve by entering a negative number into the phasor in
hard
off's exact-ead~ patch, which I downloaded from the archive. However,
I
still want to be able to independently change the length of the
ascent,
decline, and distance between waves as is possible with ead~. Does
anyone
know how I could do this, or possibly have access to an
abstraction-version
of ead~?
Best regards, Stephan
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[vline~] is versatile :) It can be used to solve many problems with envelopes. Also, don't be scared to use two vlines if it makes the problem easier to understand, their good time accuracy ensures they will do what you expect most times.
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 01:22:34 +0200 Stephan Elliot Perez dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your response. I tried to apply the branching principal using the equation from the [exact-ead~] by having the envelope go to 1 and then to 2 instead of 0, using min 1 and max 1 to create a branch, using an expression to convert the ascending numbers over 1 into descending numbers under 1, and then jumping to 0. I think the problem is that, during the switches, two 1s are sent at the same time, leading to a 2 (as seen in the graph), where I actually need a 0...
-Stephan
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.ukwrote:
You might be able to easily get that behaviour by quickly editing the example I gave you.
The maths is really geometry.
There are a few things that can be done as time domain transforms when thinking about envelopes and suchlike in this way.
- Flip it around zero with [*~ -1]
- Invert arithmetically wrt 1.0 using [sig~ 1][-~]
- Get the [min~] or the [max~] wrt another value
- Clamp at a value using [clip~] ... is special case of (3)
- Shift by an amount using [-~] or [+~]
- Scale by some factor with [*~]
IIRC the idiom for a two stage envelope like that is to use [min~]/[max~] to create a split point and treat each of the two branches differently (you can do piecewise waveform construction the same way).
If you want time symmetry then have the [vline~] go to 1.0 and back to [0.0] and just use one of the branches.
On Mon, 30 May 2011 18:45:55 +0200 Stephan Elliot Perez dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings, Thank you for your responses. I tried your suggestion, hardoff, and the result is the attached [ead-reverse~]. Unfortunately, the expression behaves differently with this [vline~]-construction as with the
[phasor~].
Here, if 1 is entered into the right input of [expr~], the result is an envelope whose steepness becomes exponentially smaller while ascending
and
exponentially greater while descending (if near 0, the opposite form is produced and values between 1 and 0 produce a divided, confused form). I however wish to produce an envelope that becomes exponentially steeper
both
ascending and descending. My problem with this [expr~] as well as with Mr. Farnell's patches
is
that I do not quite understand the math behind them. Any ideas?
Best regards, Stephan Elliot Perez
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:54 PM, hard off hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
instead of the [phaser~], send a [line~] (or [vline~]) signal.
for example:
[1, 0.5 500, 0 1000 500( | [vline~]
like most of my patches, i don't think i originally made that one,
someone
else posted it, and i just copied. ;) must have been a long time ago though, cos i barely remember it.
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Stephan Elliot Perez < dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings, I wish to produce a wave form with the opposite form of the
normal
ead~ wave (the curves become exponentially steeper instead of
flatter),
which I can achieve by entering a negative number into the phasor in
hard
off's exact-ead~ patch, which I downloaded from the archive. However,
I
still want to be able to independently change the length of the
ascent,
decline, and distance between waves as is possible with ead~. Does
anyone
know how I could do this, or possibly have access to an
abstraction-version
of ead~?
Best regards, Stephan
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Greetings, Well, I used two [vline~] objects and it works fine, but only when I set the right input one of the one [expr~] to 0 and the other to 1, which both lead to division through 0 and the corresponding error message. I believe you mentioned this problem, Mr. Farnell, regarding your own patches. To what complications does this problem lead? Does anyone know how I could modify the equation to be rid of it? Why does the patch nonetheless work?
Many thanks, Stephan On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.ukwrote:
[vline~] is versatile :) It can be used to solve many problems with envelopes. Also, don't be scared to use two vlines if it makes the problem easier to understand, their good time accuracy ensures they will do what you expect most times.
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 01:22:34 +0200 Stephan Elliot Perez dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your response. I tried to apply the branching principal using the equation from the [exact-ead~] by having the envelope go to 1 and
then
to 2 instead of 0, using min 1 and max 1 to create a branch, using an expression to convert the ascending numbers over 1 into descending
numbers
under 1, and then jumping to 0. I think the problem is that, during the switches, two 1s are sent at the same time, leading to a 2 (as seen in
the
graph), where I actually need a 0...
-Stephan
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Andy Farnell <
padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk>wrote:
You might be able to easily get that behaviour by quickly editing the example I gave you.
The maths is really geometry.
There are a few things that can be done as time domain transforms when thinking about envelopes and suchlike in this way.
- Flip it around zero with [*~ -1]
- Invert arithmetically wrt 1.0 using [sig~ 1][-~]
- Get the [min~] or the [max~] wrt another value
- Clamp at a value using [clip~] ... is special case of (3)
- Shift by an amount using [-~] or [+~]
- Scale by some factor with [*~]
IIRC the idiom for a two stage envelope like that is to use [min~]/[max~] to create a split point and treat each of the two branches differently (you can do piecewise waveform construction the same way).
If you want time symmetry then have the [vline~] go to 1.0 and back to [0.0] and just use one of the branches.
On Mon, 30 May 2011 18:45:55 +0200 Stephan Elliot Perez dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings, Thank you for your responses. I tried your suggestion, hardoff,
and
the result is the attached [ead-reverse~]. Unfortunately, the
expression
behaves differently with this [vline~]-construction as with the
[phasor~].
Here, if 1 is entered into the right input of [expr~], the result is
an
envelope whose steepness becomes exponentially smaller while
ascending
and
exponentially greater while descending (if near 0, the opposite form
is
produced and values between 1 and 0 produce a divided, confused
form). I
however wish to produce an envelope that becomes exponentially
steeper
both
ascending and descending. My problem with this [expr~] as well as with Mr. Farnell's
patches
is
that I do not quite understand the math behind them. Any ideas?
Best regards, Stephan Elliot Perez
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:54 PM, hard off hard.off@gmail.com
wrote:
instead of the [phaser~], send a [line~] (or [vline~]) signal.
for example:
[1, 0.5 500, 0 1000 500( | [vline~]
like most of my patches, i don't think i originally made that one,
someone
else posted it, and i just copied. ;) must have been a long time ago though, cos i barely remember it.
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Stephan Elliot Perez < dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings, I wish to produce a wave form with the opposite form of the
normal
ead~ wave (the curves become exponentially steeper instead of
flatter),
which I can achieve by entering a negative number into the phasor
in
hard
off's exact-ead~ patch, which I downloaded from the archive.
However,
I
still want to be able to independently change the length of the
ascent,
decline, and distance between waves as is possible with ead~.
Does
anyone
know how I could do this, or possibly have access to an
abstraction-version
of ead~?
Best regards, Stephan
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
These two are imperfect but might give you an idea. They use 1/x or reciprocal curves, which on the face of it are cheap and easy, but in practice messy because they tend to infinity as x->0 so need lots of ass wiping.
On Fri, 27 May 2011 17:24:33 +0200 Stephan Elliot Perez dreamoftheshoreofanotherworld@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings, I wish to produce a wave form with the opposite form of the normal ead~ wave (the curves become exponentially steeper instead of flatter), which I can achieve by entering a negative number into the phasor in hard off's exact-ead~ patch, which I downloaded from the archive. However, I still want to be able to independently change the length of the ascent, decline, and distance between waves as is possible with ead~. Does anyone know how I could do this, or possibly have access to an abstraction-version of ead~?
Best regards, Stephan
-
Andy Farnell -
hard off -
Stephan Elliot Perez