[PD] pd book sprint

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

> I think the key to this discussion of -1 to 1 vs 0 to 1 is what people  
> are most likely going to use them for, and what makes the most sense in 
> that context.  Of course, ideally, it wouldn't create arbitrary  
> restrictions either.  For example, Cyrille and I make basically  
> everything 0 to 1 in the mapping library since it makes things really  
> easy to do without sacrificing much flexibility. 

I think, that's very sensible.

> I think the two ranges for this discussion separate signals versus  
> controls.  A sawtooth~ is a signal that is meant to be listened to, so  
> it would good from -1 to 1.  A phasor~ is the exact same shape as a  
> sawtooth~, but it is meant to be a control, so it is 0 to 1.  You could 
> easily switch the two with some basic math, but most of the time, you'll 
> want your controls to be 0 to 1 and your signals -1 to 1.   A similar 
> pair would be square~ (signal) and pwm~ (control).

I'm with you here except maybe at the object names, but these are just
taste-related and maybe educational/language differences - I don't necessarly
think of square~ as signal and pwm~ as control (The nusmusk-pwm~ is a "signal",
too)

I'd just like to add that converting a "control signal" like the phasor~ to a
"synth oscillator" takes more than just moving its center to 0, especially
bandlimiting. OTOH a bandlimited saw or square generally is useless for control
operations because it "wiggles" too much at the jump points.

Anyway I've now read the Pd-FLOSS manual page at
http://en.flossmanuals.net/PureData/SquarewavesAndLogic and found, that it just
tries to explain some general mechanisms to generate square-ish signals from a
phasor~. As the basic techniques are the same for "synth oscillators" and
"control signals", I think keeping it in a range from 0-1 is sensible.

Ciao
-- 
Frank