@jamcultur said:

The second and third harmonics are about the same in both, but the other harmonics are significantly higher in else/paf~.

nice and thanks for deeply testing this.

One thing I can think of is that I am using 'sines' and not 'cosines'. The thing is that you can change the phase offset in both mine and miller's, so I didn't bother. Maybe I should default to cosine? I thought about that, but this is still in the oven, so... I can think some more and maybe revert it to cosine!

Can you see if changing that aligns things better?

cheers

we're back to cosines in https://github.com/porres/pd-else/actions/runs/20608031480

@porres The cosine version looks the same as before with fundamental=264, formant=650, bandwidth=10. The top spectrogram is Miller Puckette's paf~, bottom is else/paf~

I just noticed one small difference; the cosine version has a small peak below 40hz that the previous version didn't have.

can you upload your patch?

What I can tell you is that there's no audible difference for me over here. I have all literally dozens iterations of code changes/overhaul from Miller's original code. Testing the original and my latest version basically sounds the same. But I haven't put it into the test like you with a deep spectral analysis

@porres My patch used some of my own objects so I made a new patch that doesn't use them. Oops, there was a problem with the first one so I uploaded it again.
paf~test.pd

I multiplied the output of else/paf~ by 1.3 so that the level of the highest peak would match Puckette's paf~. I used a frequency range of 30 hz to 2024 hz in audiolab/pp.spectrum~

@porres I can easily hear the difference between Puckette's paf~ and else/paf~ with bandwidth set to lower values. The difference is more subtle with higher bandwidth values. When using formants to create vowel sounds, the bandwidth is normally under 200.

geez... you have an amp value of '100', it should be '1'

@porres I already uploaded the fix.

well, it looks and sounds the same here with an amp of '1'...

ok, looking closely with my glasses on, I can see the top one having a bit more spectral floor noise, but I can't hear it...

@porres It's easier to see and hear with bandwidth = 10. It's also easier to see if you set the top of the pp.spectrum~ range to 2024.

well, can you send the patch again?

this is what I have... with a bandwidth of 10... looks the same, sounds the same! I really cannot reproduce and confirm what you're saying.

the patch:

!paf-test.pd

@porres I’m away from my computer for a few hours. When I copied the else modules, I didn’t copy the subdirectories. Is there something in a subdirectory that I need?

nope, well, I guess we'll have to wait til the next year to deal with this

@porres I'm using Pd 0.56.2. I tried this on both Windows 10 and Windows 11 and I get the same results. What OS are you using?

I don't add externals to Pd's path. Does else/paf~ expect to find something in the path?

I had to multiply else/paf~'s output by 1.3 to match the level of Puckette's paf~. Is that the same for you?

@jamcultur said:

What OS are you using?

masOS Sequoia 15.7 - but I doubt this makes a difference

I don't add externals to Pd's path. Does else/paf~ expect to find something in the path?

not really, if you don't have errors, it's fine

I had to multiply else/paf~'s output by 1.3 to match the level of Puckette's paf~. Is that the same for you?

no, you can see the screenshot above and the patch. You can get it and show me a screenshot of what you see

@porres With Puckette's paf~, the 528hz peak is -6dB. When I don't multiply else/paf~ output by 1.3, the 528 hz peak is -8dB. When I multiply else/paf~ output by 1.3, the 528 hz peak is -6dB, like Puckette's paf~. This image is with bandwidth=10. The peaks are the same with bandwidth=80.

can you confirm this is from the patch I sent? Did you change it?

why didn't you stick to the same parameters I sent with bandwidth = 10, wasn't that showing more changes?

Anyway, same patch, now with bw = 80, same visual results. I don't think this has nothing to do with you being on windows... it just seems the top one stuck with bw = 10....

the patch now with bw = 80!

!paf-test.pd

@porres I had to add paths to your patch. The result is the same as my patch.