Is scale insconsistent?

Yeah - It's been weird ever since I can remember. So I made this patch to do scaling I could predict:

(The idea came from someone on the forum)

Lewis Keller wrote: > It seems to me that I should get the same exponetially scaled output > in the four mapped ranges in the patch below but I don't. If I > remove the exponential base value, all four behave identically. Any > thoughts on what I'm missing here? I'm still using 4.5.7....does 4.6 > act differently?

I gave up on the fifth argument a long time ago. Its not really documented what it does and is, as you show just buggy. I would even recommend to eliminate the documentation about the 5th argument, or maybe just mention, that it exists only for backwards compatibility, but should not be considered usefull. Any other method for tweaking and curving is better. I love to use either atodb/dbto or mtof/ftom. For musical purposes it has the advantage that it also documents what you want to do by naming it...

And last not least, Litter from Peter does contain correctly working scale objects. He will chime in and tell you if its available with the free starter pack or if you need pro... (I have to leave you some space Peter, I know you can't resist, love it... ;-)

Stefan

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

Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Mon, 19 February 2007 22:04 ---------------------------------------------------- > I gave up on the fifth argument a long time ago. Its not really > documented what it does and is, as you show just buggy.

Do you think that I should submit this as a bug report then? Or is this old news? I searched for evidence of previous reports to the list but came up empty. Perhaps this is common knowledge to Cycling folks and not worth bugging them about again? Ouch, sorry.

> And last not least, Litter from Peter does contain correctly working > scale objects. He will chime in and tell you if its available with the > free starter pack or if you need pro... > (I have to leave you some space Peter, I know you can't resist, love > it... ;-)

Why have I been so blind! Of course I have the starter pack but downloaded it when I was a wee starter myself and didn't know what to do with any of it. I really should go through all of the externals' help files from stuff I downloaded a couple of years ago and see how many things I've been doing the hard way! Thanks for the advice.

Lewis

Quote: arvidtp wrote on Mon, 19 February 2007 14:34 ---------------------------------------------------- > Yeah - It's been weird ever since I can remember. So I made this patch to do scaling I could predict: > > (The idea came from someone on the forum) >

That's beautiful, thanks for that!

Lewis Keller wrote: > Do you think that I should submit this as a bug report then? Or is > this old news? I searched for evidence of previous reports to the > list but came up empty. Perhaps this is common knowledge to Cycling > folks and not worth bugging them about again? Ouch, sorry.

Its old news and its difficult to fix at the same time. Whenever there is a weak design, and its been around for a long time, you just can't change the design. In the end, the buggy part, that, which definitely doesn't work as advertised, isn't too much worth to bother. Better get your patch work the way you think, and that would require to ignore that 5th parameter anyway... Personaly I don't care at all if this will be fixed or not...

> Why have I been so blind! Of course I have the starter pack but > downloaded it when I was a wee starter myself and didn't know what to > do with any of it. I really should go through all of the externals' > help files from stuff I downloaded a couple of years ago and see how > many things I've been doing the hard way! Thanks for the advice.

Ah, and to get you into specific, 3rd parties, I'll do it like Peter, you should have a look at my collection (at c74/share), its all abstractions which you could analyse and hopefully get some inspiration from... (and its free as in speaking about beer... ;-)

Stefan

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

> It seems to me that I should get the same exponetially scaled > output in the four mapped ranges in the patch below but I don't. > If I remove the exponential base value, all four behave > identically. Any thoughts on what I'm missing here? I'm still > using 4.5.7....does 4.6 act differently?

I use the patch below. Everything is fine, consistent, and has more options than scale anyway.

Arvid's patch is nice, but it's not an exponential mapping. The following also demonstrates the (subtle) differences between exponential and power mappings.

Requires the Litter Power Starter Pack, available below

-------------- http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ ------------- Peter Castine +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter Universal Binaries on the way iCE: Sequencing, Recording & Interface Building for |home | chez nous| Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri| http://www.dspaudio.com/ http://www.castine.de

Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Tue, 20 February 2007 01:40 ---------------------------------------------------- > > Ah, and to get you into specific, 3rd parties, I'll do it like Peter, > you should have a look at my collection (at c74/share), its all > abstractions which you could analyse and hopefully get some inspiration > from... (and its free as in speaking about beer... ;-) ----------------------------------------------------

Stefan, I've already got it. In fact I recommended St.PresetAid to someone on the list just the other day! :) Thanks for sharing your hard work.

Lewis

Quote: Peter Castine wrote on Tue, 20 February 2007 02:23 ---------------------------------------------------- > Arvid's patch is nice, but it's not an exponential mapping. The > following also demonstrates the (subtle) differences between > exponential and power mappings.

Ah yes, thanks for pointing that out.

>

LOL! Because you programmed it to work as advertised. :) Thank you too for making the starter pack freely available and for the help.

Lewis

Lewis Keller wrote: >> #P comment 275 234 184 196617 why are all four outputs the same?; > > LOL! Because you programmed it to work as advertised. :)

Actually he didn't, and the question should be "why are all four outputs not always the same? (try to give it 2.04) The answer would be the int numberboxes...

Stefan

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

On 21-Feb-2007, at 16:14, Stefan Tiedje wrote:

> (try to give it 2.04)

Nice find.

2.04 gets screwed by the [* 100.]. Replace that with a [lp.scampi 100 round] and everything's hunky dory again.

Wow, we just had that in the other thread. Synchronicity, man. Heavy. I think I hear 'Dark Side of the Moon' playing in the next room.

Wow.

This is almost as psychedelic as double-clicking on lp.hyppie.

-------------- http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ ------------- Peter Castine +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter Universal Binaries on the way iCE: Sequencing, Recording & Interface Building for |home | chez nous| Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri| http://www.dspaudio.com/ http://www.castine.de