• LarsXI

    it's messy, but possible, to use a single sample delay with clipped feedback to generate a typical compressor envelope. i don't have this patched up in an intelligible way but i could clean it up if anyone is interested.

    posted in technical issues read more
  • LarsXI

    I've been doing it like this lately, but i'm curious if there's a better way

    image.png

    posted in technical issues read more
  • LarsXI

    using [rzero~ 1] with [samphold~ ] might be interesting.
    or rather, not samphold~ but i'm not sure what...

    i think a lot of discussions about this either here or on the list end up concluding that it is preferable to just rebuild the LFO using vline~, so you know ahead of time when it will change direction. Are you using an LFO that has too complex a pitch modulation to build it with vline~?

    posted in technical issues read more
  • LarsXI

    yep, there's several ways to do it, but you can start by putting a message box in front of both you line~ objects with the message $1 5

    [tabread mutes]
    |
    [$1 5 (
    |
    [line~ ]

    this should make the volume ramp up or down over five milliseconds when it changes. the line~ object will change to the new value over the time specified by the second number in the list at the left inlet.

    the clicks you're getting now happen when the osc~ output is far from 0 at the block boundaries. the line~ objects change their output abruptly at the block boundaries and the sound of the sine wave going from some value to 0 immediately sounds like a click transient. with a 5ms time value, the line~ will instead wait for a block boundary, and then begin changing to the new value over 5ms.

    posted in technical issues read more
  • LarsXI

    on second thought, i'm pretty sure i'm wrong about this one, because of the fixed ratio operators in the tx81z/dx11

    txdxdetune.pd

    this patch is still kind of interesting and you would save a good bit of processing. on a 4 op 8 voice synth, you would save 23 phase accumulators total, but have reduced control over individual operator pitch.

    posted in technical issues read more
  • LarsXI

    yep, this creates two sine tones, 2 Hz apart...
    image.png
    the phasor~ 2 would be common to all voices

    in polyphonic material it might be fine, as long as each voice received an arbitrary dc offset. but it would spoil per-voice pitch envelopes. the dx11 has pitch envelope, but it definitely targets the pitch of all operators at once.

    posted in technical issues read more
  • LarsXI

    thank you!!

    okay, yeah. actually now that i understand better how vline~ works i guess it would be possible to phase sync without using the sample and hold method. if i'm sending pitch with a vline~ i have time to send a phase 0 message to my phasors. i should revise some of my lfo designs that use sample and hold reset for no benefit.

    i just need to make sure i'm not reseting phase on a stolen note to avoid clicks.

    i used to have a tx81z and a dx11 and i have a strange suspicion. they let you set a ratio for operator pitch, as normal. then, they let you choose one of 7 options for oscillator detune. you do not select detune in cents. this could mean that each voice only has one phase accumulator/phasor-like osc. the ratios are set by multiplying and wrapping that ramp before a sine shape. when detune is selected, it's possible the synth uses one of six cheap low-frequency beating oscillators to send to the phase inputs of all the operators that are set to be detuned.

    posted in technical issues read more
  • LarsXI

    hey! yep, i ran multiple instances of tabsend/recieves and then the delays, both in block~ 1 and it looked like the delays were slightly less cpu heavy, but i didn't check RAM. i'm still a little paranoid about cross modulation- like what if the fundamental gets negated if certain modulation is running 1 sample behind. but that's probably nonsense! especially since the phasor~s aren't phase synced anyway

    i'm working on something now that i'm really excited about that has a simple 2op structure that feeds back into itself. I love fm feedback sounds so much.

    the rzero~ -1 i copped from this thread, https://forum.pdpatchrepo.info/topic/6185/feedback-fm-algorithm/10

    i wonder if there is an effect of putting that in front of the feedback delay

    posted in technical issues read more
  • LarsXI

    Here's another take that might be lazy and dumb, but i have a suspicion that it is fine:
    pmmatrix.pd

    needs a lot of work before it will fit into a project. normal modulation from one operator to the other sounds fine to me. feedback sounds about right too. keeping the buffer on the delays down to 0.05 should be fine for sample rates down to 22050.

    posted in technical issues read more
  • LarsXI

    the method weightless uses here is really good! https://forum.pdpatchrepo.info/topic/10745/3-op-fm-synth-with-mod-matrix/3

    i opened up that patch and the crux of it is using tabsend~ and tabreceive~ with a block~ 1 1 1 to delay the outputs of each operator by one sample. (i am wondering now if this is a better method to get a one sample delay than using delwrite~ and delread~, i need to do some testing. at the very least, it's wasteful to use a delwrite~ with a buffer of an entire 7 ms)

    the tables that tabsend~ and tabreceive~ use store only a single value each.

    so each operator receives fm input one sample later than it arrives at the fm input. this is a totally negligible delay for normal fm, and feedback is only possible this way, because the phase can't be calculated and take feedback into account. the feedback must be from 1 sample in the past because otherwise it hasn't been calculated yet.

    the $ arguments in the patch make it easier to make separate multiples of things. if you have time to go through the documentation about abstractions and arguments, that will be very useful for synth stuff generally.

    i can draft up something that breaks down the tabsend/receive method this evening, but you should spend some time with the patch by weightless because it's great

    posted in technical issues read more

Internal error.

Oops! Looks like something went wrong!