[PD] Does Pd have a "sound"?

Matt Barber brbrofsvl at gmail.com
Wed Feb 17 09:15:22 CET 2016


They won't sound bad, necessarily; they just won't sound band limited.
(Everything has its place.)
On Feb 16, 2016 1:29 PM, "cyrille henry" <ch at chnry.net> wrote:

> if you want to compare the "sound" of SC and pd, please use band limited
> operator, or both will sound bad.
>
> cheers
> c
>
>
> Le 16/02/2016 19:16, Matt Barber a écrit :
>
>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:
>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160217/afced139/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Pd-list mailing list