Thanks! (Until then, I'm going to be trying out the UDO's from the presentation and the code in the CSD's! =) ) On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:01 PM, victor wrote: > Thanks. There are a couple of other algorithms waiting in the wings. As > soon as we get them out, I'll show them to you. > > Victor > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Yi" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:09 PM > Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: new bandlimited oscillators (was: Re: UDO > question) > > >> Hi Victor, >> >> I downloaded the zip and looked through the presentation, examples, >> and CSD's. Bravo!!! >> >> steven >> >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:01 AM, victor wrote: >>> >>> also I think the change in shape at low frequencies is just because >>> modFM only approximates a pulse, it is not exactly one. >>> >>> Victor >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "victor" >>> To: >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:44 PM >>> Subject: [Csnd] Re: new bandlimited oscillators (was: Re: UDO question) >>> >>> >>>> I had also noticed that the CSD had, for no particular reason, ksmps=1, >>>> so if you did not change that, I expect it would have been slow. The >>>> results I mentioned before were for ksmps=64. >>>> >>>> yes, the DC blocking has its issues, but that is the same with any other >>>> method that tries to turn a pulse into a saw or square. A few tweaks and >>>> it could be OK. I also had another method of removing the mean without >>>> actually using a DC blocker: find out the mean for a range of >>>> frequencies, >>>> store that on a table and just subtract that from the signal. That >>>> probably >>>> might turn out to be better. >>>> >>>> Victor >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Dobson" >>>> >>>> To: >>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 5:51 PM >>>> Subject: [Csnd] new bandlimited oscillators (was: Re: UDO question) >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thanks for posting these examples - I finally got the csd ones running >>>>> after I twigged they needed 5.09. Somewhat slow on the G4 iMac (just 4 >>>>> voices before breakup), but much better on dual-core, unsurprisingly - >>>>> I >>>>> will need to lengthen the envelopes to be sure I am genuinely playing >>>>> more >>>>> than 16 voices (via my 2-octave Oxygen8 controller), but so far so >>>>> good! One >>>>> thing - am I right in assuming the loss of waveform shape at low >>>>> frequencies >>>>> (looks like bottom partials are reduced quite a bit, from about >>>>> 200Hz), and >>>>> the just-noticeable latency is because of the new ultra-powerful >>>>> dcblock2 >>>>> opcode? Presumably for low notes (e.g. floor-shaking 50Hz) the order >>>>> has to >>>>> be increased pro rata. Higher up the range, the waveforms look and >>>>> sound >>>>> excellent! >>>>> >>>>> Richard Dobson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> victor wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, all my stuff's GPL and there are no strings attached. If you want >>>>>> to have a look at the code, I have an archive with the dafx material >>>>>> in: http://music.nuim.ie/vlazzarini/tmp/Dafx08.zip >>>>>> >>>>>> Out of curiosity, I just checked the cost here on my computer. Takes >>>>>> about 2.3 secs to do 100 secs of output. Using a buzz instead, is >>>>>> about >>>>>> 2 secs per 100 secs. Not bad. >>>>>> >>>>>> Victor >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Send bugs reports to this list. >>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body >>>>> "unsubscribe >>>>> csound" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Send bugs reports to this list. >>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe >>>> csound" >>> >>> >>> >>> Send bugs reports to this list. >>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe >>> csound" >>> >> >> >> Send bugs reports to this list. >> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe >> csound" > > > > Send bugs reports to this list. > To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe > csound" >