Grimm

Let's say I want cycle~ to sweep gradually from 55hz to 880hz. Using a line object, the bass register is heard to sweep much more swiftly than the treble because one octave's distance in hertz is a mere 55hz down low, but is 440hz up high.

What are some simple ways solve this problem?

Let's say I want cycle~ to sweep gradually from 55hz to 880hz.  Using a line object, the bass register is heard to sweep much more swiftly than the treble because one octave's distance in hertz is a mere 55hz down low, but is 440hz up high.

What are some simple ways solve this problem?


logarhythmic-frequency-sweeps

in other news, logarithm is spelled thusly

with use line~ to make a linear pitch sweep before you mtof~ it into cycle~.

well, I think spelling it Logarhythm is pretty cool. You can make that the name of the patch.

well, I think spelling it Logarhythm is pretty cool.  You can make that the name of the patch.


> with use line~ to make a linear pitch sweep before you mtof~ it into cycle~.

>
> with use line~ to make a linear pitch sweep before you mtof~ it into cycle~.
>
> _
> johan

Cheers
Gary Lee Nelson
Oberlin College
www.timara.oberlin.edu/GaryLeeNelson

My music friends insist on respelling algorithm as algorhythm - mostly

> well, I think spelling it Logarhythm is pretty cool. You can make that the

My music friends insist on respelling algorithm as algorhythm - mostly
musicologists.

>
> well, I think spelling it Logarhythm is pretty cool.  You can make that the
> name of the patch.

i can work around it just by smoothing out the data with another line~, but i don't seem to have a mtof~ object at my disposal (just mtof). maybe this is because i'm still using 4.3 -- is mtof~ a newly available object?

i can work around it just by smoothing out the data with another line~, but i don't seem to have a mtof~ object at my disposal (just mtof).  maybe this is because i'm still using 4.3 -- is mtof~ a newly available object?


On 17 avr. 07, at 00:07, Joseph Grimm wrote:

> i can work around it just by smoothing out the data with another 

> line~, but i don't seem to have a mtof~ object at my disposal (just 

> mtof). maybe this is because i'm still using 4.3 -- is mtof~ a 

Yep. mtof~ and ftom~ have been introduced in Max 4.5. You can still 

achieve the quite the same thing with line, mtof, and sig~/line~.

> i can work around it just by smoothing out the data with another  
> line~, but i don't seem to have a mtof~ object at my disposal (just  
> mtof).  maybe this is because i'm still using 4.3 -- is mtof~ a  
> newly available object?

Yep. mtof~ and ftom~ have been introduced in Max 4.5. You can still  
achieve the quite the same thing with line, mtof, and sig~/line~.

> Yep. mtof~ and ftom~ have been introduced in Max 4.5. You can still 

> achieve the quite the same thing with line, mtof, and sig~/line~.

Or take a look at the mtof help which shows the formula and respell it using signal objects. Cheaper would it be to store these values in a lookup table (buffer~) and read m out with play~ or wave~ or the like. You see, also in Max all patch cords lead to Rome.

> Yep. mtof~ and ftom~ have been introduced in Max 4.5. You can still  
> achieve the quite the same thing with line, mtof, and sig~/line~.

> Or take a look at the mtof help which shows the formula and respell 

actually I'm quite sure it cheaper to stay in control domain.

> Cheaper would it be to store these values in a lookup table 

> (buffer~) and read m out with play~ or wave~ or the like.

It will have to be a really large lookup.

> You see, also in Max all patch cords lead to Rome.

> Or take a look at the mtof help which shows the formula and respell  
> it using signal objects.

> Cheaper would it be to store these values in a lookup table  
> (buffer~) and read m out with play~ or wave~ or the like.

Quote: Gary Lee Nelson wrote on Mon, 16 April 2007 23:35

----------------------------------------------------

> My music friends insist on respelling algorithm as algorhythm - mostly

And they will be condemned in hell to proofread the OED directly from microfilm.

Dammit, spellings *mean* something, and neither logarithm nor algorithm have anything at all to do with rhythm. They are derived from the Greek "arithmos" (number), in the case of algorithm ultimately going back to a Latinization of the Arabic al-Kwarizmi (referring to the 9th-cent. mathematician Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Mūsa).

I will forgive people for whom English is a second language for stumbling over orthography, but for ostensible native speakers there is no excuse. Even Dan Quayle used a spell-checker (not that it did him much good).

On a more positive front: I use lp.scampf for this sort of thing. In the case of frequency, mtof is, of course, another viable approach.

Quote: Gary Lee Nelson wrote on Mon, 16 April 2007 23:35
----------------------------------------------------
> My music friends insist on respelling algorithm as algorhythm - mostly
> musicologists.
>

On a more positive front: I use lp.scampf for this sort of thing. In the case of frequency, mtof is, of course, another viable approach.


Doesn't logarhythm use those african wooden drums? ;-)>

> Quote: Gary Lee Nelson wrote on Mon, 16 April 2007 23:35

> ----------------------------------------------------

>> My music friends insist on respelling algorithm as algorhythm - 

Lawrence Casserley - lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk

Lawrence Electronic Operations - www.lcasserley.co.uk

Colourscape Music Festivals - www.colourscape.org.uk

> Quote: Gary Lee Nelson wrote on Mon, 16 April 2007 23:35
> ----------------------------------------------------
>> My music friends insist on respelling algorithm as algorhythm -  
>> mostly
>> musicologists.
>>
>

Lawrence Casserley - lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk
Lawrence Electronic Operations - www.lcasserley.co.uk
Colourscape Music Festivals - www.colourscape.org.uk

> Doesn't logarhythm use those african wooden drums? ;-)>

>> Quote: Gary Lee Nelson wrote on Mon, 16 April 2007 23:35

>> ----------------------------------------------------

>>> My music friends insist on respelling algorithm as algorhythm - mostly

> Lawrence Casserley - lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk

> Lawrence Electronic Operations - www.lcasserley.co.uk

> Colourscape Music Festivals - www.colourscape.org.uk

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

lawrence casserley wrote:
> Doesn't logarhythm use those african wooden drums? ;-)>
>
> L
>
>> Quote: Gary Lee Nelson wrote on Mon, 16 April 2007 23:35
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>> My music friends insist on respelling algorithm as algorhythm - mostly
>>> musicologists.
>>>
>>
>
> Lawrence Casserley - lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk
> Lawrence Electronic Operations - www.lcasserley.co.uk
> Colourscape Music Festivals - www.colourscape.org.uk
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


On 17 Apr 2007, at 12:09, lawrence casserley wrote:

and the chanting that goes along with it is called logorhythm (or is 

>>> My music friends insist on respelling algorithm as algorhythm - 

and the chanting that goes along with it is called logorhythm (or is  
that rhythmic advertising?)

>
> L
>
>>
>> Quote: Gary Lee Nelson wrote on Mon, 16 April 2007 23:35
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>> My music friends insist on respelling algorithm as algorhythm -  
>>> mostly
>>> musicologists.
>>>
>>
>
> Lawrence Casserley - lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk
> Lawrence Electronic Operations - www.lcasserley.co.uk
> Colourscape Music Festivals - www.colourscape.org.uk
>
>


> Dammit, spellings *mean* something, and neither logarithm nor 

> algorithm have anything at all to do with rhythm. They are derived 

But doesn't the word "rhythm" and the "-rithm" suffix share this root? 

What I mean is; isn't the connection at least there somewhere?

> I will forgive people for whom English is a second language for stumbling over orthography, but for ostensible native speakers there is no excuse. Even Dan Quayle used a spell-checker (not that it did him much good).

My personal hate-typo is when AMERICANS use a common microphone brand to 

Peter Castine skrev:
> Dammit, spellings *mean* something, and neither logarithm nor 
> algorithm have anything at all to do with rhythm. They are derived 
> from the Greek "arithmos" (number)
But doesn't the word "rhythm" and the "-rithm" suffix share this root? 
What I mean is; isn't the connection at least there somewhere?
> I will forgive people for whom English is a second language for stumbling over orthography, but for ostensible native speakers there is no excuse. Even Dan Quayle used a spell-checker (not that it did him much good).
My personal hate-typo is when AMERICANS use a common microphone brand to 
say that they're SURE of something :-|

On Apr 17, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Andreas Wetterberg wrote:

> My personal hate-typo is when AMERICANS use a common microphone 

> brand to say that they're SURE of something :-|

I have to second that one. And I am an American. I have seen a few 

other nationalities do this though. Regardless, it bugs me.

On Apr 17, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Andreas Wetterberg wrote:
> My personal hate-typo is when AMERICANS use a common microphone  
> brand to say that they're SURE of something :-|

I have to second that one.  And I am an American.  I have seen a few  
other nationalities do this though.  Regardless, it bugs me.

------
Nathan Wolek, PhD
nathan@lowkeydigitalstudio.com
http://www.lowkeydigitalstudio.com

At 12:44 PM +0200 4/17/07, Peter Castine wrote:

>[...] neither logarithm nor algorithm have anything at all to do with rhythm.

Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.

cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,

 | and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno

At 12:44 PM +0200 4/17/07, Peter Castine wrote:
>[...] neither logarithm nor algorithm have anything at all to do with rhythm.

-- 
Chris Muir           | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com         |  This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com |  and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno


it seems like it would be possible to use the 5th argument (exponential base value) in the scale object to accomplish something similar. But does anyone know offhand what value would achieve a perceptually consistent glissando?

it seems like it would be possible to use the 5th argument (exponential base value) in the scale object to accomplish something similar.  But does anyone know offhand what value would achieve a perceptually consistent glissando?


Quote: jamez wrote on Mon, 16 April 2007 15:26

> well, I think spelling it Logarhythm is pretty cool. You can make that the name of the patch.

which is still a better idea than the idea from the 

the more of your logorhythms the better my ottography.

Quote: jamez wrote on Mon, 16 April 2007 15:26
----------------------------------------------------
> well, I think spelling it Logarhythm is pretty cool.  You can make that the name of the patch.
----------------------------------------------------

which is still a better idea than the idea from the 
gent who wants us to use a lookup table.

> it seems like it would be possible to use the 5th argument

> (exponential base value) in the scale object to accomplish something

> similar. But does anyone know offhand what value would achieve a

I gave up on that, its useless, even the creators of that parameter 

don't know... (I think there is exactly one value which seems to create 

something useful, but that curve never fits specific needs...)

If you use mtof, ftom, atodb, dbtoa almost all needed exponentialisms 

are covered, and if you come back to your patch years later you will 

Joseph Grimm schrieb:
> it seems like it would be possible to use the 5th argument
> (exponential base value) in the scale object to accomplish something
> similar.  But does anyone know offhand what value would achieve a
> perceptually consistent glissando? 

I gave up on that, its useless, even the creators of that parameter 
don't know... (I think there is exactly one value which seems to create 
something useful, but that curve never fits specific needs...)
If you use mtof, ftom, atodb, dbtoa almost all needed exponentialisms 
are covered, and if you come back to your patch years later you will 
immediately know what its for...

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com


Quote: Wetterberg wrote on Tue, 17 April 2007 14:45

> > Dammit, spellings *mean* something, and neither logarithm nor 

> > algorithm have anything at all to do with rhythm. They are derived 

> But doesn't the word "rhythm" and the "-rithm" suffix share this root?

Nope. Look it up in any etymological dictionary. A brief summary:

rhythm < Gk rhuthmos (from rhein 'to flow')

logarithm < mod. Lt logarithmus < Gk. logos (reckoning, ratio) + arithmos (number)

arithmetic < Gk arithmeteke < arithmos + tekhne ('art' or 'technique', ie the 'art of counting')

Algorithm is, as I previously wrote, a Latinizataion of the cognomen of an Arabic mathematician; the Latinization was informed by the Greek arithmos but has nothing to do with rhythm.

Cute deliberate misspellings are all the rage, but Gary was referring to a pseudo-learned blunder on a par with forming the plural of ignoramus as 'ignorami'. Which is just plain ignorant.-

Quote: Wetterberg wrote on Tue, 17 April 2007 14:45
----------------------------------------------------
> Peter Castine skrev:
> > Dammit, spellings *mean* something, and neither logarithm nor 
> > algorithm have anything at all to do with rhythm. They are derived 
> > from the Greek "arithmos" (number)
> But doesn't the word "rhythm" and the "-rithm" suffix share this root? 

> Quote: Wetterberg wrote on Tue, 17 April 2007 14:45

>>> Dammit, spellings *mean* something, and neither logarithm nor 

>>> algorithm have anything at all to do with rhythm. They are derived 

>> But doesn't the word "rhythm" and the "-rithm" suffix share this root? 

> Nope. Look it up in any etymological dictionary. A brief summary:

Thanks for the clarification here, Peter: I love it.

- Everyone here has bigger books than I do!

> Cute deliberate misspellings are all the rage, but Gary was referring to a pseudo-learned blunder on a par with forming the plural of as 'ignorami'. Which is just plain ignorant.-

Indeed - but knowing how to properly conjugate that word also means that 

one has to know its underlying etymology - that it is infact a plural, 

absorbed into Anglo-French legal terms. But we can't all schlepp around 

etymological reference works, and sometimes we just have to wing it...

Now, "Shure" as in "Shure, no problem" still *isn't* cute and *isn't* 

Peter Castine skrev:
> Quote: Wetterberg wrote on Tue, 17 April 2007 14:45
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>> Peter Castine skrev:
>>
>>> Dammit, spellings *mean* something, and neither logarithm nor 
>>> algorithm have anything at all to do with rhythm. They are derived 
>>> from the Greek "arithmos" (number)
>>>
>> But doesn't the word "rhythm" and the "-rithm" suffix share this root? 
>>
>
> Nope. Look it up in any etymological dictionary. A brief summary:
>
Thanks for the clarification here, Peter: I love it.

- Everyone here has bigger books than I do!
> Cute deliberate misspellings are all the rage, but Gary was referring to a pseudo-learned blunder on a par with forming the plural of as 'ignorami'. Which is just plain ignorant.-
Indeed - but knowing how to properly conjugate that word also means that 
one has to know its underlying etymology - that it is infact a plural, 
absorbed into Anglo-French legal terms. But we can't all schlepp around 
etymological reference works, and sometimes we just have to wing it...
Now, "Shure" as in "Shure, no problem" still *isn't* cute and *isn't* 
forgivable forgivable in my book.

Quote: Wetterberg wrote on Wed, 18 April 2007 20:54

> Thanks for the clarification here, Peter: I love it.

> - Everyone here has bigger books than I do!

Relax... here in Germany it's supposed to be the size of your car you need to worry about.

> Now, "Shure" as in "Shure, no problem" still *isn't* cute and *isn't* 

I think the misspelling is attempting to reflect a modification in pronunciation that's quite popular... something between |sh oŏr| and |sh ər| (if the phonetic characters aren't rendering properly, think of a pronunciation like "shirt" without the T, an extended initial sibilant, and maybe a bit of dipthong on the vowel.) I suppose people are trying to imitate a down-home South-of-the-Mason-Dixon-line kind of accent.

The spelling isn't successful, and most people don't really get the accent right, either. Ah shore can't do it lahk mah aunt down in Jacksonville.

Quote: Wetterberg wrote on Wed, 18 April 2007 20:54
----------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the clarification here, Peter: I love it.
>
> - Everyone here has bigger books than I do!

> Now, "Shure" as in "Shure, no problem" still *isn't* cute and *isn't* 
> forgivable forgivable in my book.

The spelling isn't successful, and most people don't really get the accent right, either. Ah shore can't do it lahk mah aunt down in Jacksonville.


PS: are the Danes as obsessed with car size as their neighbors to the south?

> PS: are the Danes as obsessed with car size as their neighbors to the south?

Not at all - but they're all so conformist, the only real debate is 

whether to go "dark blue" or "metallic silver" for the paint job....

Peter Castine skrev:
> PS: are the Danes as obsessed with car size as their neighbors to the south?
Not at all - but they're all so conformist, the only real debate is 
whether to go "dark blue" or "metallic silver" for the paint job....

logarhythmic frequency sweeps