petterdass

Im trying to make a litle "operator" (oscillator) for a hopefully flexible additive synthesizer. Im going to have around 50 of these set up in a "modulation matrix" for being able to morph between basic waveforms like saw and square, and maybe also using the resulting waveforms as a fm modulator in an "2 operator" fm synth,

where the latter additive patch is the modulator and a sine as carrier (or something like this)

The inlets in the right of the patch should recieve data from "global" multislider envelopes.

Would something like this be difficult to accomplish?

Please modify my little operator to be clever :)

Im trying to make a litle "operator" (oscillator) for a hopefully flexible additive synthesizer. Im going to have around 50 of these set up in a "modulation matrix" for being able to morph between basic waveforms like saw and square, and maybe also using the resulting waveforms as a fm modulator in an "2 operator" fm synth,
where the latter additive patch is the modulator and a sine as carrier (or something like this)

Please modify my little operator to be clever :)


strugling-abit-to-make-an-operator-for-additive-synth

These "operators" is going to be "controlled" by something like this genious patch from adamj

Im sorry for bothering with everything, but my max part of the brain (i guess thats the right half) is on vacation.

> Im trying to make a litle "operator" (oscillator) for a hopefully 

> flexible additive synthesizer. Im going to have around 50 of these 

> set up in a "modulation matrix" for being able to morph between basic

I doubt that mixing 50 oscilators with a matrix~ just to get different

What about actually modifying the waveform directly and morphing by

interpoaltion with pattrstorage? As a starting point and for further

> and maybe also using the resulting waveforms as a fm modulator in an

> "2 operator" fm synth, where the latter additive patch is the

> modulator and a sine as carrier (or something like this)

This doesn't really look like fm, there was a thread recently with some 

but here is an additive waveform constructor:

petterdass schrieb:
> Im trying to make a litle "operator" (oscillator) for a hopefully 
> flexible additive synthesizer. Im going to have around 50 of these 
> set up in a "modulation matrix" for being able to morph between basic
> waveforms like saw and square,

I doubt that mixing 50 oscilators with a matrix~ just to get different
wave forms is very effective.

What about actually modifying the waveform directly and morphing by
interpoaltion with pattrstorage? As a starting point and for further
studies the patch below...

> and maybe also using the resulting waveforms as a fm modulator in an
> "2 operator" fm synth, where the latter additive patch is the
> modulator and a sine as carrier (or something like this)

This doesn't really look like fm, there was a thread recently with some 
patches....

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

Quote: petterdass wrote on Sun, 25 November 2007 08:29

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

> Im trying to make a litle "operator" (oscillator) for a hopefully flexible additive synthesizer. Im going to have around 50 of these set up in a "modulation matrix" for being able to morph between basic waveforms like saw and square, and maybe also using the resulting waveforms as a fm modulator in an "2 operator" fm synth,

> where the latter additive patch is the modulator and a sine as carrier (or something like this)

After looking at your patches, I don't quite follow your question. It seems like your patch is changing the frequency of cycle, and the amplitude, with the same number. Off the top of my head:

• Multiplying the frequency by x and dividing the amplitude by x is going to yield an idiosyncratic result. It will tend to make higher frequencies quieter, but I might do it differently.

• Amplitude and frequency are probably best controlled with other signals. adamj's patch does this.

• As I type, I see Stefan has given you an even more helpful answer.

Quote: petterdass wrote on Sun, 25 November 2007 08:29
----------------------------------------------------
> Hello
>
> Im trying to make a litle "operator" (oscillator) for a hopefully flexible additive synthesizer. Im going to have around 50 of these set up in a "modulation matrix" for being able to morph between basic waveforms like saw and square, and maybe also using the resulting waveforms as a fm modulator in an "2 operator" fm synth,
> where the latter additive patch is the modulator and a sine as carrier (or something like this)
>

After looking at your patches, I don't quite follow your question.  It seems like your patch is changing the frequency of cycle, and the amplitude, with the same number. Off the top of my head:

• Multiplying the frequency by x and dividing the amplitude by x is going to yield an idiosyncratic result.  It will tend to make higher frequencies quieter, but I might do it differently.

• Amplitude and frequency are probably best controlled with other signals.  adamj's patch does this.

"After looking at your patches, I don't quite follow your question. It seems like your patch is changing the frequency of cycle, and the amplitude, with the same number. Off the top of my head:

• Multiplying the frequency by x and dividing the amplitude by x is going to yield an idiosyncratic result. It will tend to make higher frequencies quieter, but I might do it differently"

When making "basic waveforms" additively, isnt that the right way?

i.e 100hz sawtooth - 1partial 100hz sine, second partial 100hz x2, amplitude /2 etc

At 1:44 AM -0700 11/27/07, petterdass wrote:

>When making "basic waveforms" additively, isnt that the right way?

>i.e 100hz sawtooth - 1partial 100hz sine, second partial 100hz x2, amplitude /2 etc

Well, that method will work for sawtooth, and I have an example illustrating that, called Partial Workshop, that can be found at 

 It will generate a few basic waveforms as well as letting you draw in the harmonic levels.

That said, if you're going to be doing additive stuff, CNMAT has some great objects that you may find helpful.

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 1:44 AM -0700 11/27/07, petterdass wrote:
>When making "basic waveforms" additively, isnt that the right way?
>
>i.e 100hz sawtooth - 1partial 100hz sine, second partial 100hz x2, amplitude /2 etc

Well, that method will work for sawtooth, and I have an example illustrating that, called Partial Workshop, that can be found at http://www.xfade.com/max/examples  It will generate a few basic waveforms as well as letting you draw in the harmonic levels.

-- 
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


Thanks all, but im struggling to make something very simple, like this :

But this one has some trouble with the comparision i think...

Looks like a problem with order of execution. The signal to open or close

the gate must arrive first. This is confusing because this is the (perhaps)

single exception to Max' order of execution rule. In this case, it is the

right inlet that causes output. I made this simple abstraction so I

wouldn't have to remember this. I called it "etag"

> Thanks all, but im struggling to make something very simple, like this :

> #P window setfont "Fixedwidth Serif" 10.;

> #P window setfont "Fixedwidth Serif" 9.;

> #N comlet freq multiplication/ amp division;

> #P comment 63 261 52 9109513 antialiasing;

> But this one has some trouble with the comparision i think...

Looks like a problem with order of execution.  The signal to open or close
the gate must arrive first.  This is confusing because this is the (perhaps)
single exception to Max' order of execution rule.  In this case, it is the
right inlet that causes output.  I made this simple abstraction so I
wouldn't have to remember this.  I called it "etag"

On 11/28/07 6:49 AM, "petterdass"  wrote:

>
> Thanks all, but im struggling to make something very simple, like this :
>
> max v2;
> #N vpatcher 15 55 666 595;
> #P window setfont "Sans Serif" 9.;
> #P newex 190 285 27 9109513 gate;
> #P button 191 204 15 0;
> #N comlet nyquist input;
> #P inlet 191 243 15 0;
> #P window setfont "Fixedwidth Serif" 10.;
> #P newex 132 259 38 9240586
> #P button 270 202 15 0;
> #P window setfont "Fixedwidth Serif" 9.;
> #P newex 207 202 32 9240585 * 1.;
> #P newex 230 350 29 9240585 /~ 1.;
> #P window setfont "Sans Serif" 9.;
> #P newex 190 319 36 9109513 cycle~;
> #N comlet freq multiplication/ amp division;
> #P inlet 321 184 17 0;
> #N comlet freq;
> #P inlet 207 180 15 0;
> #P outlet 230 381 15 0;
> #P comment 63 261 52 9109513 antialiasing;
> #P connect 6 0 8 0;
> #P connect 10 0 8 0;
> #P connect 9 0 8 1;
> #P connect 8 0 11 0;
> #P connect 11 0 4 0;
> #P connect 2 0 10 0;
> #P connect 2 0 6 0;
> #P connect 7 0 6 0;
> #P connect 6 0 11 1;
> #P connect 3 0 6 1;
> #P connect 4 0 5 0;
> #P connect 5 0 1 0;
> #P connect 3 0 5 1;
> #P connect 3 0 7 0;
> #P pop;
>
>
> But this one has some trouble with the comparision i think...

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

Is this patch now imune to aliasing?
i.e 22000 + = no sound


I use this, for a single partial, in my Partial Workshop example - 

I use this, for a single partial, in my Partial Workshop example - 
http://www.xfade.com/max/examples

Thanks chris, but why have you not connected anything to cycle freq 

input, and why is a phasor connected to cycle phase input?

Thanks chris, but why have you not connected anything to cycle freq 
input, and why is a phasor connected to cycle phase input?


At 12:40 PM -0700 11/28/07, petterdass wrote:

>Thanks chris, but why have you not connected anything to cycle freq

>input, and why is a phasor connected to cycle phase input?

phasor~ is driving cycle~, so the frequency is applied to phasor~, and not cycle~.

I think I did it this way so that I could sync all the cycle~s together.

At 12:40 PM -0700 11/28/07, petterdass wrote:
>Thanks chris, but why have you not connected anything to cycle freq
>input, and why is a phasor connected to cycle phase input?

strugling abit to make an "operator" for additive synth