reson~ Q and Amplitude


    Oct 26 2011 | 9:25 am
    Is there a "scientific" formula about the inverse relation between these two ? I would like to be able to change the Q (e.x from 0.5 to 100) without having the drop in amplitude. I have obviously scaled the gain in relation to Q, but perhaps there is a better way?

    • Nov 02 2011 | 9:45 pm
      no one ?
    • Aug 30 2017 | 3:31 pm
      Resurrecting this post, as I was just browsing around to find the answer too... Still no one? I'll browse other resources.
    • Sep 15 2017 | 8:28 am
      I did have some solution for this (trial and error solution rather than scientific), I can't find the old abstraction I made so... I would love for someone to contribute some pearls of wisdom about this supposedly common issue. I am trying to decipher this formula https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/filters/Resonator_Bandwidth_Terms_Pole.html
      and make it max-friendly, will keep you posted, unless someone else chimes in
    • Sep 25 2017 | 12:59 am
      See section B.6 in the JOS. As I understand it, it's difficult to tune two pole resonators with high Q because the poles interfere with each other, and so it's much easier to use a complex one-pole resonator because the tuning is simpler and the gain is constant across frequencies.
      I don't know if this is what CNMAT's resonators~ (available in the Package Manager) uses, but suspect that it might since it's easy to specify tuning and sustain.
      This page offers a good explanation of how they work: http://www.katjaas.nl/complexintegrator/complexresonator.html
      You could roll your own in gen~, but I'd recommend trying resonators~ first to see if it will do what you need.