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"