lukhasj

it`s dawned on me that fft (pfft) shifting in max

sounds like crap, excuse me for the vocals.

there always seems to be a framesize drawback

but altiverb for instance sounds quite accurate

and doesnt have the mpeg like distortion to it.

are there optimal settings for chunksize and overlap

or.. am i just stuck with a poor sound with pfft

it`s dawned on me that fft (pfft) shifting in max
sounds like crap, excuse me for the vocals.
there always seems to be a framesize drawback
that i do not accept as proper sound.
but altiverb for instance sounds quite accurate
and doesnt have the mpeg like distortion to it.

are there optimal settings for chunksize and overlap
or.. am i just stuck with a poor sound with pfft


fft-guru-needed

http://www.sarc.qub.ac.uk/~elyon/LyonSoftware/MaxMSP/FFTease/

I've always found fft stuff to sound pretty bad in max also. So the 

best thing I have found so far is the csound external and/or the 

> it`s dawned on me that fft (pfft) shifting in max

> sounds like crap, excuse me for the vocals.

> there always seems to be a framesize drawback

> but altiverb for instance sounds quite accurate

> and doesnt have the mpeg like distortion to it.

> are there optimal settings for chunksize and overlap

> or.. am i just stuck with a poor sound with pfft

I've always found fft stuff to sound pretty bad in max also. So the  
best thing I have found so far is the csound external and/or the  
rtcmix~ external.

>
> it`s dawned on me that fft (pfft) shifting in max
> sounds like crap, excuse me for the vocals.
> there always seems to be a framesize drawback
> that i do not accept as proper sound.
> but altiverb for instance sounds quite accurate
> and doesnt have the mpeg like distortion to it.
>
> are there optimal settings for chunksize and overlap
> or.. am i just stuck with a poor sound with pfft


I always thought of them as beign called the ff"tease" like they tease you by sounding incredible and then crashing right when you get the perfect sound.

I always thought of them as beign called the ff"tease" like they tease  you by sounding incredible and then crashing right when you get the perfect sound.

but they did get alot more stable in 2.5


That means you want to pitch shift vocals? Then you have to deal with 

formants as well and don't shift them. This ain't a trivial task and has 

FFT is a mathematically pretty solid way of dealing with spectra. You 

won't be able to tweak the results if you don't know how it works...

FFT in csound~, rtcmix, supercollider or Mathlab will sound exactly the 

same if you do the same with it (same window, same size, same overlap, 

lukas schrieb:
> it`s dawned on me that fft (pfft) shifting in max
> sounds like crap, excuse me for the vocals.

That means you want to pitch shift vocals? Then you have to deal with 
formants as well and don't shift them. This ain't a trivial task and has 
nothing to do with pfft~...
FFT is a mathematically pretty solid way of dealing with spectra. You 
won't be able to tweak the results if you don't know how it works...
FFT in csound~, rtcmix, supercollider or Mathlab will sound exactly the 
same if you do the same with it (same window, same size, same overlap, 
same tweaks...)

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

Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Fri, 07 September 2007 13:14

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

> > it`s dawned on me that fft (pfft) shifting in max

> > sounds like crap, excuse me for the vocals.

> That means you want to pitch shift vocals? Then you have to deal with 

> formants as well and don't shift them. This ain't a trivial task and has 

thats like altiverb, which also has nothing to do with fft.

Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Fri, 07 September 2007 13:14
----------------------------------------------------
> lukas schrieb:
> > it`s dawned on me that fft (pfft) shifting in max
> > sounds like crap, excuse me for the vocals.
>
> That means you want to pitch shift vocals? Then you have to deal with 
> formants as well and don't shift them. This ain't a trivial task and has 
> nothing to do with pfft~...

thats like altiverb, which also has nothing to do with fft.


I think by vocals he meant his French (i.e. bad language!). Not that 

he's working with vocal sounds :-) Unless the comma was put in the 

That aside the thing with csound and rtcmix is that the fft code is 

already done for you so there is little DSP DIY involved. I have not 

yet used rtcmix for fft but compared with max and supercollider 

csound has given me the best result without going through much trouble.

And of course csound's FFT is not great for realtime but then FFT is 

very heavy and for a good result I wouldn't use it realtime in max 

either, but that's just me... Maybe if I was a DSP guru it would be 

On 8 Sep 2007, at 00:44, Roman Thilenius wrote:

> Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Fri, 07 September 2007 13:14

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

>>> it`s dawned on me that fft (pfft) shifting in max

>>> sounds like crap, excuse me for the vocals.

>> That means you want to pitch shift vocals? Then you have to deal with

>> formants as well and don't shift them. This ain't a trivial task 

> thats like altiverb, which also has nothing to do with fft.

I think by vocals he meant his French (i.e. bad language!). Not that  
he's working with vocal sounds :-) Unless the comma was put in the  
wrong place!

That aside the thing with csound and rtcmix is that the fft code is  
already done for you so there is little DSP DIY involved. I have not  
yet used rtcmix for fft but compared with max and supercollider  
csound has given me the best result without going through much trouble.

And of course csound's FFT is not great for realtime but then FFT is  
very heavy and for a good result I wouldn't use it realtime in max  
either, but that's just me... Maybe if I was a DSP guru it would be  
different.

>
> Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Fri, 07 September 2007 13:14
> ----------------------------------------------------
>> lukas schrieb:
>>> it`s dawned on me that fft (pfft) shifting in max
>>> sounds like crap, excuse me for the vocals.
>>
>> That means you want to pitch shift vocals? Then you have to deal with
>> formants as well and don't shift them. This ain't a trivial task  
>> and has
>> nothing to do with pfft~...
>
>
> thats like altiverb, which also has nothing to do with fft.
> --
> http://vst-mac.info/


so i supose the oldschool fft windowed with a sine function instead of a buffer would sound the best?

> so i supose the oldschool fft windowed with a sine function instead of a buffer would sound the best?

I am sorry, but is that what you take away from the seven very good 

Also, two of the replies also posed questions in order to help you 

better. I think it would be prudent to answer those before we go any 

lukas skrev:
> so i supose the oldschool fft windowed with a sine function instead of a buffer would sound the best?
I am sorry, but is that what you take away from the seven very good 
responses you have been given?
Also, two of the replies also posed questions in order to help you 
better. I think it would be prudent to answer those before we go any 
further.

now.. lets suppose my da and ad work the same there must be a factor contributing to, the data sounding different.

i suppose its down to distortion, in the windowing department.

now.. lets suppose my da and ad work the same there must be a factor contributing to, the data sounding different.
i suppose its down to distortion, in the windowing department.

> I always thought of them as being called the ff"tease" like they 

> tease you by sounding incredible and then crashing right when 

We always thought of it as both fft "ease" and ff "tease" but "tease" like they tease you by sounding incredible and then you realize you just gobbled up 50% of the CPU capacity on your 400 MHz PowerBook ;)

> but they did get alot more stable in 2.5

One way to help me make them even more stable is to send crash reports when things go south.

> I always thought of them as being called the ff"tease" like they 
> tease  you by sounding incredible and then crashing right when 
> you get the perfect sound.
>

> That aside the thing with csound and rtcmix is that the fft code is 

> already done for you so there is little DSP DIY involved.

> I have not yet used rtcmix for fft but compared with max and

> supercollider csound has given me the best result without going

My trouble with csound is, that its way too low level for my laziness... ;-)

peiman khosravi schrieb:
> That aside the thing with csound and rtcmix is that the fft code is 
> already done for you so there is little DSP DIY involved.

> I have not yet used rtcmix for fft but compared with max and
> supercollider csound has given me the best result without going
> through much trouble.

> so i supose the oldschool fft windowed with a sine function instead

I guess you mean a buffer filled with a windowing function?

Depends what you are after, what you want to do with the bins inside 

pfft~... Using other windows is as oldschool as using hamming windows...

lukas schrieb:
> so i supose the oldschool fft windowed with a sine function instead
> of a buffer would sound the best?

I guess you mean a buffer filled with a windowing function?
Depends what you are after, what you want to do with the bins inside 
pfft~... Using other windows is as oldschool as using hamming windows...

since when do fft~ and pfft~ use buffers with windowing functions in them?

Sorry am I missing something?. What exactly do you mean Altiverb has

> > > it`s dawned on me that fft (pfft) shifting in max

> > > sounds like crap, excuse me for the vocals.

> > That means you want to pitch shift vocals? Then you have to deal with

> > formants as well and don't shift them. This ain't a trivial task and has

Sorry am I missing something?. What exactly do you mean Altiverb has
"nothing" to do with FFT?...

On 08/09/2007, Roman Thilenius  wrote:
>
> Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Fri, 07 September 2007 13:14
> ----------------------------------------------------
> > lukas schrieb:
> > > it`s dawned on me that fft (pfft) shifting in max
> > > sounds like crap, excuse me for the vocals.
> >
> > That means you want to pitch shift vocals? Then you have to deal with
> > formants as well and don't shift them. This ain't a trivial task and has
> > nothing to do with pfft~...
>
>
> thats like altiverb, which also has nothing to do with fft.
> --
> http://vst-mac.info/
>

-- 
Pere Josep Villez
Creative and Computational Sound
Department of Creative Technologies
University of Portsmouth
36-40 Middle Street
Portsmouth
PO5
Tel 00 44 23 9284 8484

www.centuryofnoise.com
www.perevillez.com


Quote: pvillez@gmail.com wrote on Sun, 09 September 2007 17:21

> Sorry am I missing something?. What exactly do you mean Altiverb has

okay, this was a really stupid comment of mine.

what i wanted to say is that one can hardly 

compare the sound of a deconvolution process 

with the sound of (another?) pitch shifting process, 

because pitch shifting simply is not deconvolution.

if you would multiply fft data in MSP in a deconvolution/reconvolution process it would 

not create more artefacts than with the same 

process using fft code from apple, lake, or fftw, 

you just wold need a 50 GHz Mac to use it as reverb.

Quote: pvillez@gmail.com wrote on Sun, 09 September 2007 17:21
----------------------------------------------------
> Sorry am I missing something?. What exactly do you mean Altiverb has
> "nothing" to do with FFT?...
>

what i wanted to say is that one can hardly 
compare the sound of a deconvolution process 
with the sound of (another?) pitch shifting process, 
because pitch shifting simply is not deconvolution.
you know, as in "apples and oranges". :)

if you would multiply fft data in MSP in a deconvolution/reconvolution process it would 
not create more artefacts than with the same 
process using fft code from apple, lake, or fftw, 
you just wold need a 50 GHz Mac to use it as reverb.


OK but I will eat my computer if you can come up with a fft based 

pitch scaling or time expansion in pure msp that sounds as good as, 

say, audiosculpt, or even csound. I am sure it is possible but you 

would have to do a year's worth of coding probably.

On 10 Sep 2007, at 03:31, Roman Thilenius wrote:

> Quote: pvillez@gmail.com wrote on Sun, 09 September 2007 17:21

>> Sorry am I missing something?. What exactly do you mean Altiverb has

> okay, this was a really stupid comment of mine.

> what i wanted to say is that one can hardly

> compare the sound of a deconvolution process

> with the sound of (another?) pitch shifting process,

> because pitch shifting simply is not deconvolution.

> you know, as in "apples and oranges". :)

> if you would multiply fft data in MSP in a deconvolution/ 

> not create more artefacts than with the same

> process using fft code from apple, lake, or fftw,

> you just wold need a 50 GHz Mac to use it as reverb.

OK but I will eat my computer if you can come up with a fft based  
pitch scaling or time expansion in pure msp that sounds as good as,  
say, audiosculpt, or even csound. I am sure it is possible but you  
would have to do a year's worth of coding probably.

>
> Quote: pvillez@gmail.com wrote on Sun, 09 September 2007 17:21
> ----------------------------------------------------
>> Sorry am I missing something?. What exactly do you mean Altiverb has
>> "nothing" to do with FFT?...
>>
>
>
> okay, this was a really stupid comment of mine.
>
> what i wanted to say is that one can hardly
> compare the sound of a deconvolution process
> with the sound of (another?) pitch shifting process,
> because pitch shifting simply is not deconvolution.
> you know, as in "apples and oranges". :)
>
> if you would multiply fft data in MSP in a deconvolution/ 
> reconvolution process it would
> not create more artefacts than with the same
> process using fft code from apple, lake, or fftw,
> you just wold need a 50 GHz Mac to use it as reverb.
>
>


> OK but I will eat my computer if you can come up with a fft based 

> pitch scaling or time expansion in pure msp that sounds as good as, 

> say, audiosculpt, or even csound. I am sure it is possible but you 

> would have to do a year's worth of coding probably.

audiosculpt has also not been made in 3 days. :)

as you might know, it does a bit more than changing the time in the fft bins, audioscupt is not a simple phase vocoder.

audiosculpt or spear as a creative tool play more in the resynthesis class than they would be linear processes.

the fourier transform itself is always the same, you must think of it as a math process like *~ and +~.

of course *~ and +~ will also sound better with 100 bits of precision at 192 Hz, as they will sound better when you interpolate modulation to avoid clicks, which explains why nuendo mixes sound better than mixes made in MSP.

> OK but I will eat my computer if you can come up with a fft based  
> pitch scaling or time expansion in pure msp that sounds as good as,  
> say, audiosculpt, or even csound. I am sure it is possible but you  
> would have to do a year's worth of coding probably.
>
> Peiman

audiosculpt has also not been made in 3 days. :) 

> Sorry am I missing something?. What exactly do you mean...

Whenever I see this phrase, I check, and yes, its a reply to Roman... ;-)

You missed Roman, it has nothing to do with windows... or xease or...

Pere Josep Villez schrieb:
> Sorry am I missing something?. What exactly do you mean...

Whenever I see this phrase, I check, and yes, its a reply to Roman... ;-)
You missed Roman, it has nothing to do with windows... or xease or...

i did manage to get a different sound from the oldschool:)

but that was due to a low frequency distortion created by the

sine window, so i suppose hanning cleared that issue.

only the externals do not pop up??.. what file do i need to put where, when the externals are put in the externals folder?

i did manage to get a different sound from the oldschool:)
but that was due to a low frequency distortion created by the
sine window, so i suppose hanning cleared that issue.
not that dirty is bad for that matter.

only the externals do not pop up??.. what file do i need to put where, when the externals are put in the externals folder?


Yes I agree. But that is my point :-) To make an amazing sounding fft 

based instrument with msp one needs to know all the math and DSP 

stuff. It's way more tricky than say making a granular instrument. 

Now I am not a DSP guru and my knowledge of math is very limited so I 

would rather just use an external such as csound~ or rtcmix~ and 

spend more time composing than coding something that will never work 

On 10 Sep 2007, at 05:29, Roman Thilenius wrote:

>> OK but I will eat my computer if you can come up with a fft based

>> pitch scaling or time expansion in pure msp that sounds as good as,

>> say, audiosculpt, or even csound. I am sure it is possible but you

>> would have to do a year's worth of coding probably.

> audiosculpt has also not been made in 3 days. :)

> as you might know, it does a bit more than changing the time in the 

> fft bins, audioscupt is not a simple phase vocoder.

> audiosculpt or spear as a creative tool play more in the 

> resynthesis class than they would be linear processes.

> the fourier transform itself is always the same, you must think of 

> of course *~ and +~ will also sound better with 100 bits of 

> precision at 192 Hz, as they will sound better when you interpolate 

> modulation to avoid clicks, which explains why nuendo mixes sound 

Yes I agree. But that is my point :-) To make an amazing sounding fft  
based instrument with msp one needs to know all the math and DSP  
stuff. It's way more tricky than say making a granular instrument.   
Now I am not a DSP guru and my knowledge of math is very limited so I  
would rather just use an external such as csound~ or rtcmix~ and  
spend more time composing than coding something that will never work  
that well.

>
>
>> OK but I will eat my computer if you can come up with a fft based
>> pitch scaling or time expansion in pure msp that sounds as good as,
>> say, audiosculpt, or even csound. I am sure it is possible but you
>> would have to do a year's worth of coding probably.
>>
>> Peiman
>
>
> audiosculpt has also not been made in 3 days. :)
>
> as you might know, it does a bit more than changing the time in the  
> fft bins, audioscupt is not a simple phase vocoder.
>
> audiosculpt or spear as a creative tool play more in the  
> resynthesis class than they would be linear processes.
>
> the fourier transform itself is always the same, you must think of  
> it as a math process like *~ and +~.
>
> of course *~ and +~ will also sound better with 100 bits of  
> precision at 192 Hz, as they will sound better when you interpolate  
> modulation to avoid clicks, which explains why nuendo mixes sound  
> better than mixes made in MSP.
>
>
>


Quote: Eric Lyon wrote on Sat, 08 September 2007 13:22

> > I always thought of them as being called the ff"tease" like they 

> > tease you by sounding incredible and then crashing right when 

> We always thought of it as both fft "ease" and ff "tease" but "tease" like they tease you by sounding incredible and then you realize you just gobbled up 50% of the CPU capacity on your 400 MHz PowerBook ;)

> > but they did get alot more stable in 2.5

> One way to help me make them even more stable is to send crash reports when things go south.

I tried contacting you at the two e-mail addresses I found by Googling Eric Lyon FFTease and both bounced. 

http://arcana.dartmouth.edu/~eric/MAX/FFTease/

Quote: Eric Lyon wrote on Sat, 08 September 2007 13:22
----------------------------------------------------
> > I always thought of them as being called the ff"tease" like they 
> > tease  you by sounding incredible and then crashing right when 
> > you get the perfect sound.
> >
>
> We always thought of it as both fft "ease" and ff "tease" but "tease" like they tease you by sounding incredible and then you realize you just gobbled up 50% of the CPU capacity on your 400 MHz PowerBook ;)
>
>
> > but they did get alot more stable in 2.5
>
> One way to help me make them even more stable is to send crash reports when things go south.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Eric
>
----------------------------------------------------

Hi Eric,
I tried contacting you at the two e-mail addresses I found by Googling Eric Lyon FFTease and both bounced. 
The e-mail here and the URL:
http://www.sarc.qub.ac.uk/~elyon/LyonSoftware/MaxMSP/FFTease/
http://arcana.dartmouth.edu/~eric/MAX/FFTease/

> Whenever I see this phrase, I check, and yes, its a reply to Roman... ;-)

> You missed Roman, it has nothing to do with windows... or xease or...

the truth is alwys hard to understand. :)

it is easily possible to build impulse response reverbs without any fourier transformation. hybrid models containing FIR only (plus other components such as allpasses) are quite hip a the moment.

because oyu have to pay for the petends for "zero latency" fft thats the way to go for many.

> Whenever I see this phrase, I check, and yes, its a reply to Roman... ;-)
> You missed Roman, it has nothing to do with windows... or xease or...
>

because oyu have to pay for the petends for "zero latency" fft thats the way to go for many.


there shure are tricks to do a little enhancing.

but would`nt an fft based convolution verb sound

fft guru needed