Good.

But one more question about rewriting tables,
why is writing so much more expensive (in terms of CPU usage) than reading ?
best
Oeyvind


2007/12/11, Anthony Kozar <anthonykozar@sbcglobal.net>:
>
> If you are going to use Chebyshev polynomials (or even non-Chebyshev
> polynomials) then I would guess it will be more efficient to use the new
> opcode chebyshevpoly (or polynomial) that is now in CVS.  Calculating an
> entire table every k-pass will compute a lot of unused values.
>
> I have gotten very smooth results in my tests of chebyshevpoly so far
> (once
> I realized that a k-rate de-clicking envelope was introducing
> discontinuities).  The new opcode powershape is also quite nice for
> variable
> x^y waveshaping/distortion.
>
> Anthony Kozar
> anthonykozar AT sbcglobal DOT net
> http://anthonykozar.net/
>
> victor wrote on 12/10/07 6:07 PM:
>
> > Well, that depends, because if the transfer functions differ
> > a lot, then you might get clicks, as the resulting waveform
> > might have a big jump between samples. If however you are
> > using well-behaved polynomials, then the difference between
> > the curves might be smooth enough. Also remember that
> > by just drawing transfer functions it is very easy to get
> > non-bandlimited signals. Polynomials are generally your
> > best bet.
> >
> > Victor
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Oeyvind Brandtsegg
> > To: Csound mailing list address
> > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 10:19 PM
> > Subject: [Csnd] dynamic wavetables, was: phase shaping
> >
> >
> > All this talk about phase shaping and rewriting tables got me thinking.
> > Is there something hindering us from algorithmically rewriting
> wavetables on
> > the fly ?
> > I figure, if the rewriting is happening at the exact same rate as the
> table
> > reading, we would not get unwanted clicks or discontinuities.
> > Or ?
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>