[PD] Re: buzz~ (more)www.ccrma.edu/~stilti/papers/blit.pdf
lt at westnet.com
Sun Oct 26 17:32:27 CET 2003
On Sunday 26 October 2003 10:12, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Did you alter the C or the flext version? Maybe it also would be useful
> to write this as a SndObj object. SndObj includes a Buzz opcode, but
> last time I looked it was generating strange sound, probably because
> of rounding errors (It uses table lookups for sin/cos generation).
The C version, only because I still don't have a handle on flext, SndObj (I'm
not sure even what that is!), or the PD build process. Your C version was
much easier to build for me.
> > (o) It would be nice if the a parameter could be a DSP signal as well.
> Yes, but it will however make it more expensive, because you cannot
> precalculate several of the variables anymore.
That's true; there should be two versions of the DSP loop.
> > (o) I didn't bother with the theta (initial phase) parameter that's used
> > in the formula - I just set it to zero and didn't compute it. I think
> > it's only usefull if the output is then nonlinearized of if FM is used on
> > it, right?
> I think, a mean of resetting it (for oscillator sync) would still be
I should have elaborated. This is not the same thing. In the formula you can
set the initial phase of all the harmonics to (the same) specific angle. This
is independent of setting the iniial phase of the phasor, which sets the
initial phases to ( k * theta).
> > (o) Would it make sense to have a version that takes input from an
> > external phasor, rather than using one internally? In this way the
> > computation would be reduced when using a few of these to generate a
> > complete spectrum as is described in the paper.
> Yes, I think this would make sense, although I didn't read the blit
> paper for some time now.
More information about the Pd-list