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"