Csound Csound-dev Csound-tekno Search About

[Csnd] Re: new bandlimited oscillators (was: Re: UDO question)

Date2008-11-25 18:44
Fromvictor
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"