[PD] Does Pd have a "sound"?

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

correct code

{VarSaw.ar(LFPulse.kr(1, 0, 0.3, 50, 50), 0, LFTri.ar(1, 0, 0.5,
0.5))!2}.play

2016-02-16 2:54 GMT-02:00 Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>:

> well, while we're at it, here's the patches for you to check and speculate
> :)
>
>
> SuperCollider Code;
> VarSaw.ar(LFPulse.kr(1, 0, 0.3, 50, 50), 0, LFTri.ar(1, 0, 0.5,
> 0.5))!2.play
>
> 2016-02-16 2:45 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com>:
>
>> If there is difference between the sound of [triangle~] and VarSaw, it
>> might actually be in the way phase is generated. The algorithms themselves
>> are pretty much the same, but while VarSaw makes its own single-precision
>> phase by simply subtracting 1 when an increment takes it past 1.0 (using a
>> conditional on each sample), [triangle~] is a waveshaper that is fed phase.
>> Pd's phasor is a little idiosyncratic, using a kind of bit-hacking to
>> unwrap phase (the Höldrich method), which is supposed to perform a bit
>> faster than a conditional, and it's inside not just [phasor~] but all the
>> oscillator objects. If I remember correctly it can be prone to phase drift
>> over time, but don't quote me on that.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres <
>> porres at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I still believe differences between Pd and SC depend on other technical
>>> details than the ones presented, because similar objects like triangle~ and
>>> VarSaw will just sound quite differently, hence it may rely on subtleties
>>> inside the objects themselves. And I'm not talking about the "cultural" use
>>> which is something I believe makes quite a difference even in the Pd x Max
>>> world (when they both sound quite similar).
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> 2016-02-15 13:54 GMT-02:00 Andy Farnell <padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good list of technical peculiarities Claude. For me, the "sound" is
>>>> those
>>>> quirks combined with how Chris describes a "cultural" or "contextual"
>>>> use.
>>>> I used to be great at knowing the sound of software or hardware sources
>>>> and could spot Reaktor, or a Roland analogue in moments. But emulations
>>>> got better and my ears got older, and maybe I began to care less about
>>>> implementation and more about artistic intent. As Chris says,
>>>> different tools tend to make you think and work in certain patterns,
>>>> and I think it is this more than anything that constitutes a "sound".
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160216/55d117b1/attachment.html>