[PD] slop~ (new object for 0.50) and the "slew" term

[Miller Puckette]

Slop~ _can_ be configured to be a slew limiter, or a linear low-pass filter, or
various other things - the name tries to convey that its identity is
in the eye o the beholder.  My intention was to design the most flexible
nonlinear one-pole filter I could.

But I think your "slew" object probably does need a more exact name :)

M

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:05:54PM -0300, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> Em ter, 23 de jul de 2019 ??s 19:20, Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu> escreveu:
> 
> > q105 is a true slew limiter but that whoever's selling it
> > on that page misunderstood what it does.
> 
> 
> Yeah, might as well be just that :) Nonetheless, in slop~, you have a
> "linear region" and the other inlets that are "asymptotic". So if you have
> "0" for the 3th/5th inlets and the same input value for asymptotic
> upwards/downwards region, you basically have a "simple" one pole filter.
> More precisely, something that could be implemented with fexpr~ as:
> 
> [fexpr~ $y1 + (($x1-$y1) * $f2)], where $f2 is the cuttof frequency in
> radians per sample.
> 
> At least that's where I got when I tried to simplify this down.
> 
> My point is that you can achieve this kind of filtering which is quite
> different than a slew limiter. But then, could it be a misappropriation of
> the object? Like, is this there not to be used on its own, but in
> conjunction with other parameters?
> 
> But one way or another, seems I should really change the name of my "slew"
> object :)
> 
> thanks