@Obineg Is it really a Pd thing or a problem with digital signals in general? Not sure if this is what you mean, but I made the following observation: Subtracting the result of a halfwave readout of [cos~] from the regular full wave readout doesn't give zero output for the second half of the cycle. The differences wouldn't cause any audible effect in most situations, I guess, but maybe you get into trouble with this when doing more complicated stuff like you mentioned. Or am I missing something else?

Two of the four counters could be replaced by rpole~, so it's maybe better like this (probably not clearer, though): wavesets-real-time.pd

I just returned to this and made another patch now dealing with wavesets in real-time. Could probably be done much easier, but anyway ... wavesets-real-time.pd

To be honest, I hadn't tested the patch before I shared it. Which I definately should have, because I just found some serious distortion problems! Not the kind of distortion that you may want, of course ...

The problem is this: In a digital (sampled) signal you can never really find zero-crossings. All you can get is the first sample after the zero crossing. So I had to calculate an imaginary point between the samples n (> 0) and n-1 (< 0) using linear interpolation. The point of zero crossing then is: n - x[n] / (x[n] - x[n-1])

Fortunately, the vline~ object is sub-sample accurate and can handle this!

So here is an improved version of the patch: waveset-experiments-ms.pd

One more problem might be pd's limited precision. But I've never worked with "double precision" and it would probably be an overkill for this kind of problem anyway.

@gn Finally, I found some time for this ... (continuing the digression )

Here's a variation of your patch. For better results (and since this is how wavesets are usually defined), I only considered zero crossings from negative to positive. It also seemed easier to me using the vline~ instead of the phasor~ object: waveset-experiments-ms.pd

I guess, there are still some bugs in it ...

That looks interesting! But it will take me some more time to understand what's going on in your patch ...

By the way: Wouldn't this better be a new topic?

Yeah, that's basically the same idea!

Taking the cosine instead of the sine has, of course, the advantage of not having any DC offset (in my attempt, impair numbers of wavesets per cycle sometimes produce DC offset because of the amplitude scaling). And with the cosine you don't even have to do the scaling to avoid discontinuities. Here's a slightly modified cosine version of my patch: waveset-modulation-cos.pd

I guess, the main reason for working with wavesets is the application on recorded sound (which Trevor Wishart does). It's much easier to find zero crossings than turning points, and wavesets allow to "jump" between different portions of the sound without having jumps in the signal.

Here's a patch demonstrating a modulation technique that I just found while I was experimenting with waveset operations as described by Trevor Wishart (I'm not sure how this technique should be called, "waveset modulation" might not be a good name):

waveset-modulation.pd

Does anyone know, whether this or something similar has been used before?