Hans Mittendorf

Just came across Miller's article about phase bashing. Has someone started to look into this for a port to MSP?

phase-bashing

http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/techniques/v0.11/book-html/node177.html

Is this the same technique you are speaking of? If so

and it has not been implemented, I think it would be

> Just came across Miller's article about phase bashing. Has someone 

> started to look into this for a port to MSP?

Hey Hans, I found this article...
http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/techniques/v0.11/book-html/node177.html

Is this the same technique you are speaking of? If so
and it has not been implemented, I think it would be
a great goup patch we could all work on. 

----- Original Message -----
From: Hans Mittendorf 
Date: Thursday, June 7, 2007 3:30 pm
Subject: [maxmsp] phase bashing

>
> Just came across Miller's article about phase bashing. Has someone 
> started to look into this for a port to MSP?
>


http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/Publications/icmc05.dir/reprint.html

I read it here
http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/Publications/icmc05.dir/reprint.html
It looks great to me...


hmmmm, that article seems to have a different way of doing it.

One uses an FFT, while the other does not. I would not mind 

trying both. Give me a bit and I will post what I have.

hmmmm, that article seems to have a different way of doing it.
One uses an FFT, while the other does not. I would not mind 
trying both. Give me a bit and I will post what I have.

----- Original Message -----
From: Hans Mittendorf 
Date: Thursday, June 7, 2007 3:54 pm
Subject: [maxmsp] Re:  phase bashing

>
> I read it here
> http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/Publications/icmc05.dir/reprint.html
> It looks great to me...
>


the word "phase bashing" sounds funny and reminds me a bit of kyma?s "distortion synthesis".

i dont get why the odd and even phase values inside the fft are split up into 2 groups, can anyone explain me this?

Okay, so this is my first draft of the implementation

of the phase bashing algorithm. It still needs work, 

but I wanted to share it with you guys so that I could

get some feedback on whether or not I am approaching

this the right way. The block diagram for the algorithm 

http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/Publications/icmc05.dir/node2.html.

- i am currently using number~ to convert the audio 

signal into a float to index into a buffer/table. It would 

be nice to know a way to do this at the audio rate, without

- the block diag states "WRAP", i am not sure what range to 

Please look it over and post suggestions.

> the word "phase bashing" sounds funny and reminds me a bit of 

> i dont get why the odd and even phase values inside the fft are 

> split up into 2 groups, can anyone explain me this?

> or should i just wait for your patches.

Okay, so this is my first draft of the implementation
of the phase bashing algorithm. It still needs work, 
but I wanted to share it with you guys so that I could
get some feedback on whether or not I am approaching
this the right way. The block diagram for the algorithm 
can be found at 
http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/Publications/icmc05.dir/node2.html.

some things to keep in mind...
- still not working
- i am currently using number~ to convert the audio 
signal into a float to index into a buffer/table. It would 
be nice to know a way to do this at the audio rate, without
having to convert.
- the block diag states "WRAP", i am not sure what range to 
use. I assume [-0.5, 0.5] 

----- Original Message -----
From: Roman Thilenius 
Date: Friday, June 8, 2007 12:25 pm
Subject: [maxmsp] Re:  Re:  phase bashing

>
>
> the word "phase bashing" sounds funny and reminds me a bit of 
> kyma?s "distortion synthesis".
>
> i dont get why the odd and even phase values inside the fft are 
> split up into 2 groups, can anyone explain me this?
>
> or should i just wait for your patches.
>


I tryed the patch, but no sound is coming out...

Me too - I made a couple of alterations to get some sound out of it, albeit

On 10/6/07 20:14, "Hans Mittendorf" wrote:

> I tryed the patch, but no sound is coming out...

Me too - I made a couple of alterations to get some sound out of it, albeit
not very promising ones as yet....
Cheers
Roger

On 10/6/07 20:14, "Hans Mittendorf"  wrote:

>
> I tryed the patch, but no sound is coming out...

I think I found the problem. It looks as though peek~ is 

not very good at doing audio rate playback. I think wave~ is 

what we really want to use in this case. I am also using a 

single cycle of a waveform to test with. I simplified the 

patch a bit an removed things that did not make sense.

I think I found the problem. It looks as though peek~ is 
not very good at doing audio rate playback. I think wave~ is 
what we really want to use in this case. I am also using a 
single cycle of a waveform to test with. I simplified the 
patch a bit an removed things that did not make sense. 

> - i am currently using number~ to convert the audio 

> signal into a float to index into a buffer/table. It would 

> be nice to know a way to do this at the audio rate, without

replace peek~ with index~ and connect directly.

apalomba@austin.rr.com schrieb:
> - i am currently using number~ to convert the audio 
> signal into a float to index into a buffer/table. It would 
> be nice to know a way to do this at the audio rate, without
> having to convert.

replace peek~ with index~ and connect directly.
The audiorate poke~ is index~.

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


> I think I found the problem. It looks as though peek~ is

> not very good at doing audio rate playback. I think wave~ is

> what we really want to use in this case. I am also using a

> single cycle of a waveform to test with. I simplified the

> patch a bit an removed things that did not make sense.

for anybody still interested in this thread, here is a version 

modelled after the first part of the paper, which is about generating 

synthetic formants. no phase bashing is needed, since while creating 

the wavetable we can make sure that all partials are phase-aligned.

> I think I found the problem. It looks as though peek~ is
> not very good at doing audio rate playback. I think wave~ is
> what we really want to use in this case. I am also using a
> single cycle of a waveform to test with. I simplified the
> patch a bit an removed things that did not make sense.
>

for anybody still interested in this thread, here is a version  
modelled after the first part of the paper, which is about generating  
synthetic formants. no phase bashing is needed, since while creating  
the wavetable we can make sure that all partials are phase-aligned.