[PD] Why does cross synthesis with [expr~] sound much better than [poltocar~]?
Alexandre Torres Porres
porres at gmail.com
Tue Jul 21 20:39:28 CEST 2015
it's been corrected in the new cyclone library, that you can download with
the deken plugin, and it was working just fine with pd extended 0.42, so
it's a pd extended 0.43 thing
I was actually the one who raised it up an issue with both poltocar~ and
cartopol~, that the signs were inverted. It actually worked fine for
spectral processing, even though it wasn't correct. But then only one of
the objects were corrected in 0.43 and everything was ruined :) it was
2015-07-21 15:35 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>:
> if you're using pd extended 0.43, there's a bug that just ruins everything
> 2015-07-21 15:11 GMT-03:00 Reed Perkins <reedperkins32 at gmail.com>:
>> Hello list,
>> I am trying my hand at some basic FFT stuff. I am designing a cross
>> synthesis patch (see attached) where the amplitude from one signal is
>> combined with the phase of another signal and fed into [rifft~].
>> The problem is that the polar to cartesian conversion using [poltocar~]
>> sounds really bad. I worked out the trig formulas for what is going on, and
>> found that using [expr~] to handle to polar to cartesian conversion sounds
>> much better.
>> Although I am happy with the [expr~] results, I am worried that I am not
>> using [poltocar~] correctly, or understanding how to use it.The help files
>> are very vague when it comes to the FFT objects in pd, so I was wondering
>> if someone here could enlighten me as to what I'm doing wrong.
>> Thanks and have an awesome day!
>> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list