question re: phasor~ jitter and limit attributes
hi all - don't know if someone can give me a bit of help on the phasor~ object's jitter and limit attributes?
On jitter, the helpfile and reference say 'The frequency deviation above and below will be 1/100th of the value of jitter times the frequency. Example: if the current frequency is 440 and jitter is 1.0, phasor~ will generate random frequencies between 439.56 and 440.44 Hz. '
So effectively jitter is +/- a percentage of the value of frequency set at the inlet or as an argument. But 1/100 * 440 by my reckoning makes 4.4, leading to 440+4.4 = 444.4, and 440-4.4 =435.6. So is it just that the maths is wrong in the reference?
Secondly I can't really figure out precisely what 'limit' refers to. Again the reference seems to me a little bit unclear - 'The limit attribute sets an absolute amount by which the frequency can vary from its set value as a result of a non-zero jitter attribute. If jitter is reduced, the frequency may be changed gradually to bring it closer to the set value.'
Does it mean by 'absolute amount' an absolute frequency value, i.e. in the example above if one sets limit to 2, the frequency would vary +/- 2Hz, from 438 to 442, despite jitter being set to 1 (i.e. 1/100th of 440)? Or does it mean something else?
Thanks in advance!
1/100 less is sometimes not the same as 1/100 more. for frequency it should be.
and i have to admit that "440.44" is wrong for one decimal - and "439.56" does not make any sense at all.
Easier example
110 to 220 is one octave
220 -440 is one octave - but 2x greater mathematically
440-880 - 4x
Same is true then for fractions
//
it looks like the math is off - should be 1/1000
440*0.001=0.44
440-0.44=439.56
Thanks for the replies – through trial and error, jitter does seem to behave as a percentage of the frequency; so with value 50 for instance, behaviour seems consistent with random variations of +/- 50% of the frequency value. So I think the maths is indeed off in the example given in the reference.
Now really I'm trying to work out what 'limit' actually does, precisely; this seems harder to fathom. I'm not quite sure what its value refers to.