[PD] Does Pd have a "sound"?

Tue Feb 16 19:21:38 CET 2016

well, I feel it sounds better, but I wonder why... I guess it's in the
object level, so we could just clone them :)

2016-02-16 16:16 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com>:

> Sure, send 'em along. It's good for learning. I've heard so many times
> that "SC3 just sounds better," and I'm a skeptic overall. I have a few
> comparisons of my own to try soon.
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <
> porres at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Cool, but you see, I suspected SuperCollider would do things such as clip
>> the phase from  phase 0.001 to 0.999 to prevent a harsh sawtooth, and also
>> fade in (ramp) one block when a Synth starts.
>>
>> I feel it has many such details to make it sound "smoother" and nicer, it
>> also seems to be a little quieter
>>
>> well, I kind like this, if I have other patches to compare, would you
>> like to check? :)
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> 2016-02-16 14:53 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> OK, here's the updated trials.pd with appropriate phase relationships.
>>> The pulse train in SC3 is control rate, so there might be a ramp between
>>> values that I'm missing. You can add it and see if it makes a difference.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The documentation is poor on both sides. I had to go into the source
>>>> code to find out a couple of things.
>>>> On Feb 16, 2016 9:45 AM, "Alexandre Torres Porres" <porres at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> yeah, just checked them and they sound quite the same now ;) I wonder
>>>>> how I screwed up
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-02-16 12:39 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, the phase relationships didn't match those in the SC3 code.
>>>>>> I'll send the updated patch when I can get to my computer.
>>>>>> On Feb 16, 2016 9:36 AM, "Alexandre Torres Porres" <porres at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > OK, I had to adjust the Pd patch a little to get it to match the
>>>>>>> SC3 code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> why? what do you mean? was it wrong?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2016-02-16 6:07 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK, I had to adjust the Pd patch a little to get it to match the
>>>>>>>> SC3 code. I've made an A/B test: one is SC3 and the other is the matching
>>>>>>>> Pd patch. See if you can tell which one is which, and why you answered the
>>>>>>>> way you did. I went fast and made them 44.1kHz 16-bit; you'll have to live
>>>>>>>> with it. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <
>>>>>>>> porres at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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/20160216/027174f0/attachment.html>