antialiased wave forms question
Hi all… question:
why antialiased wave forms like saw~ rect~ or tri~ don’t fullfill the scope from -1 to 1 as cycle does? saw~ seems also to have a lil’ offset in minus.
because they are… antialiased. also dc offset built in since max6, so at low hz you’ll see that weirdness.
yes… thanks pid… but… i was searching for a more technical explaination about why anti aliased waveforms have to be so, i’ll try to explain better:
i’m multiplying a signal by a choosable waveform, for lfo and ring modulation.
the modulating wave can be saw~ rect~ cycle~ but of course the sig amplitude when using cycle is higher then when using antialiased rect~ or saw~, so i multiplied the rect by 1.5 and the saw by 1.75 and added to 0.7 because of the offset (this are just guessed values done looking at the scope) in this way the amplitudes are similar to when cycle it’s used as mod wave. But of course i thought there should be a reason why antialiased waves have to have less amp or offset, and if i would know this reason i could decide if the multiplying process of them is good or bad for my needings.
You may have noticed that the antialiased waveforms don’t really look like the ideal waveforms, so if you’re trying to make a LFO that has a modulating effect that sounds similar to the ideal shape, maybe you want to use the ideal shape, perhaps with just a bit of smoothing to avoid clicks. Here’s an example that uses about 1 ms of smoothing time when the ideal waveform jumps from 0 to 1 or 1 to 0.
----------begin_max5_patcher---------- 555.3oc4W0taaBCE82vSAx+NqBaymSZSpOGUSSNfWiqB1HrSaVqZd1G1FVHS .xIJkToIEYKe4Z6y8bu2Cg278.qE6oRPvWCdHvy6MeOOiIsAut0dfJx9hsDo wMfrPTSO.VYeDeWEiukpLOCcznXmp2ZXm05FpjxUDESv+YCsPYu0jH3cgqBf 4Q5ovtgfezuKhpXCi+3fcDkY7BhrS3iS+cWrRCVEqe5KPDPa6cee8vJGiRN8 k1M2GkJ5dycCzf3P.bznGOZzC6r9KAWIYuRM1P20SJVOU+tlZiMfj8HmrEbL 9mm0RCOSVKOQOFkoGQSQYXv.TyIUFvAtug0hrKfLu1kLwoZBL.CctjAiSNmR F3UrjQRdYpJFzGSEyjgeWtOe1be3m6bONK0j6iicM2CyQmQtO+ZpVPppkUBg Zygfnn1eKotwjDgsJ.BmUBH65VELAA88ucnM6EeaaN5nEqlRLZNVIcQXk5MD on4lKZzwK1WUjDMGujbc4E5qkjhKRyXDoOayuU4KtebrfHdYk2lDptoSg+fz oBu4xT3STofyU2g9epeDOPlZ91QnazhYqfsL9+9A.lKWa+TtRJ10TzC39+qP vQDTRkJF27B6gNAOwoMrxRJeXmPISRVukZfe3nYMmwC1E7fVL7j4.bxWLzj5 .ZxVLzj3.ZRWLzfb.M3kqN1AzboUw1ldRc8yzFY2QZ.RqT3ShF8xjUlkLtco 4Da+x2mY89G4qOs28+Cqzo6W -----------end_max5_patcher-----------
my doubt was more around ring modulation (i wanted to use the same waves for both low frew mod and high freq mod) that’s why i preferred to use antialiased waves, and the probleam as i said was the difference of amplitude between modulation with cycle and modulation with saw~ rect~ etc… i’ll try to cut the interested piece of patch and post it to make clear what i mean
----------begin_max5_patcher---------- 623.3oc0XtraiBCEFdM7TX4kixDYaLWxradNFUU4.tothXh.m1zV09rOXCLg 1IJwhBNzMVxW3v++2wbvvq9dv0EG3UPvu.+A348pummYH8.ds88faYGRyYUl kAuKuPteKbQyT2UHUUhW35ovjkn1g2wTo2KjatsjmpZhd.JXIIbAfDFTuLPH R2RpaA2zdQ0gUHy4Jy8A+uHUx1xU7xa4R15byMBc7BJ1q5tBR6nhLiNKV+vO ww80orNPlo9cofk2MSSDTOui2nSsAYJ3B.bMStABtQur2780MKrjQFA+N7xv .ShLXfpaSVcIX7QCiOggitfsFjcFZJmDbER4gyzTdGLF8TNcNkxwX2mwCtNY 7ghnjX2iHx2KDgCuBLBMSKbzAiwtvQxTT23htIYZLS7TXF9KYrzyVSmrLt1L A3UZaPC6ZOsYHmzLn+2LQvIYeDdRHe3TPdI+o5X2EYE+fwCPsYdGfQngeVDy p.Q3yWQIvV2SGPQiJwFY8ziIXpXOMPtbr5hgKjyyEhsbIXdvkeTSkkTJc3bg lXdCTzHwEbDZNQlvUC+C4njwkLDx7fLeghLG+rtQsHypYBYReNMmOz5L39jI Yj1zP9tW9MYRp9hGIrXjALWH+7uHx3D83ejUUE6KS6BX2NWvQ2jwqTBISIJj 8Vj4I+dq5dQVFW1+rQYhJ844MFDcxzlsBJwF8fblbhsBONSNg1Hm.mIGpMxg 5L4DXibhb2lGad1JzYp4yN+z5Iwg5wlzUr6ziU6lcX9hXUs4H2IHKjyPSWMu Hisa2i7xp1PZDR8q2ennT2MZgoqP1z0Dw5yB9nna8Teczdy+uz5uMCH -----------end_max5_patcher-----------
my first error is of course that i wanted to use the same antialiased waves both for ring modulation and lfo when i should use other waves for lfo but the question about amplitude of antialiased waves remains the same… look patch above
Forums > MaxMSP