Consistent phase when using FM
Mar 11 2016 | 10:36 pm
I'm trying to set up FM that will have consistent results every time I shift the FM knob up or down. The way it works now is that when the FM knob is turned, the phase of one of the oscillators is changed and it starts to FM from varying phases causing different results.
How would I go about changing this patch so that I can maintain consistent phase every time I mess with the FM knob?
On a side note, I noticed that when applying FM, the change in the change in the waveform is very jittery. Is there a way to smooth out changes to the signal?
- Mar 13 2016 | 10:38 amPhase isn't really going to make a difference to the sound. And, since your modulation ratio is variable there really isn't a way to keep a constant phase relationship over any arbitrary modulator settings.To smooth out the changes, have a look at line~ to change control values into signals.
- Mar 14 2016 | 1:23 amThank you so much for the reply MZED, it turns out the jittery changes in the signal is what was causing inconsistencies!But now my question is if the envelope from a single line~ can be applied to multiple sources to save cpu. Would this be possible?
- Mar 14 2016 | 3:10 amwhy not?
- Mar 14 2016 | 12:13 pmI'm new to Max, could someone provide an example of how to do that?
- Mar 14 2016 | 3:18 pmI'm not really sure what you're asking for. You can patch the output of a line~ to multiple places if you need to.
- Mar 14 2016 | 7:18 pmI would want multiple parameters to move with the smoothing produced from a single line~ instead of making a line~ for every parameter in a theoretically larger project in order to save cpu.
- Mar 14 2016 | 8:12 pmnow that is per signal - of course, if i may say so.
- Mar 14 2016 | 8:30 pmwhat one could do in a synth with 1000 paramters is to turn the line~ objects only on when a message arrives and turn them off again when interpolation has finished.if you do this using poly~, the last signal value will still be present at its outlet.but encapsulating line~ in poly~ alone needs more CPU than line~ alone, even when turned off. :)
- Mar 14 2016 | 9:29 pmI don't think that optimizing the performance of line~ is really going to do much for overall CPU savings. In general, I tend to worry about optimizing patches as the last stage of programming... if at all.
- Mar 16 2016 | 1:37 amwell it would turn off all the signals from the line object, too. but it doesnt work anyway. :) your RAM will go havoc if you have tenthousand polys.
