Kasper

i_thought_ i remembred a "jimmies" patch which was a pretty 

but whan i look at my jimmies folder, there is no such a thing

so what does it take to make a whawha?? reson~, a bandpass biquad~, 

(a wha is a band pass, right?? or a resonant low-pass??)

i_thought_ i remembred a "jimmies" patch which was a pretty 
convincing wha-wha...

so what does it take to make a whawha??  reson~, a bandpass biquad~, 
or something more??

(a wha is a band pass, right?? or  a resonant low-pass??)

kasper
-- 
  Kasper T. Toeplitz
noise, composition, bass, computer
http://www.sleazeArt.com

wha-wha

It should be enough a good bandpass filter (biquad~ could be good),

whose center frequency is controlled by something that sweeps around

the hot spot, related to the input signal and the desided output

sound. Center frequency is what is controlled traditionally by a pedal

or an envelope follower in case of autowha. The Q factor of the filter

afftect the sound, so it can be also controlled in someway or set for

I remember a wha effect built into an external but I don't have now my

It should be enough a good bandpass filter (biquad~ could be good),
whose center frequency is controlled by something that sweeps around
the hot spot, related to the input signal and the desided output
sound. Center frequency is what is controlled traditionally by a pedal
or an envelope follower in case of autowha. The Q factor of the filter
afftect the sound, so it can be also controlled in someway or set for
desired result...
I remember a wha effect built into an external but I don't have now my
max computer here to check.


It's in the ISPW Compatibility Library (& called wahwah~). The point 

was that you could modulate the central frequency with a signal (which 

you couldn't with the other filters in the jimmies).

It's in the ISPW Compatibility Library (& called wahwah~). The point 
was that you could modulate the central frequency with a signal (which 
you couldn't with the other filters in the jimmies).

so yes, i have it installed on an old, OS9, mac. I looked at the 

ircam CD's (from 2005), and , even if on their cover they claim the 

ispw lib is included (mac os X.3.9 and up), it's not...

looked at the ircam web site and the ispw is there only as OS9 

version, which does not want to be unstuffed on my osX (no classic) 

on a mac which still has the 2 systems (2 different partitions, no 

"classic emulation" i tried the whawha~ in system 9 - it works

I then copied the ispw lib in the osX max folder (externals) and was 

surprised to see than the whawha~ seems to work (it is not an 

abstraction - at least cliking on it you can not open it)

1/ was the ispw lib ported to osX?? if so, where can i found it???

2/ how come os9 object (audio object) works on osX??

so yes, i have it installed on an old, OS9, mac. I looked at the 
ircam CD's (from 2005), and , even if on their cover they claim the 
ispw lib is included (mac os X.3.9 and up), it's not...

looked at the ircam web site and the ispw is there only as OS9 
version, which does not want to be unstuffed on my osX (no classic) 
system...

on a mac which still has the 2 systems (2 different partitions, no 
"classic emulation" i tried the whawha~ in system 9 - it works

I then copied the ispw lib in the osX max folder (externals) and was 
surprised to see than the whawha~ seems to work (it is not an 
abstraction - at least cliking on it you can not open it)

1/ was the ispw lib ported to osX?? if so, where can i found it???
2/ how come os9 object (audio object) works on osX??

wawah~ was an object on the ispw, which is virtually identical to 

reson~ in msp. I think the compatibility lib version was simply an 

abstraction with reson~ inside it! reson~ will be a lot easier to use 

Lawrence Casserley - lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk

Lawrence Electronic Operations - www.lcasserley.co.uk

Colourscape Music Festivals - www.colourscape.org.uk

wawah~ was an object on the ispw, which is virtually identical to 
reson~ in msp. I think the compatibility lib version was simply an 
abstraction with reson~ inside it! reson~ will be a lot easier to use 
in this sort of context than biquad~.

Lawrence Casserley - lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk
Lawrence Electronic Operations - www.lcasserley.co.uk
Colourscape Music Festivals - www.colourscape.org.uk


>wawah~ was an object on the ispw, which is virtually identical to 

>reson~ in msp. I think the compatibility lib version was simply an 

>abstraction with reson~ inside it! reson~ will be a lot easier to 

>use in this sort of context than biquad~.

I tried all kind of versions - biquad~, 2 biquads in cascade, reson~, 

giving the same parameters (or almost the same, as i am not sure what 

would be the same Q for biquad and reson...) i got very different 

reson~ does not sound the same as wahwah - reson is much "clearer" - 

i was "deceived" by biquad~ (too polite) and 2 biquads did not had a 

actually the nicest results ( to my ears!!) were obtained either with 

reson, or with fffb~ - building 5 parallel whas, slightly (and 

bujt then i have 5 real whawhas (and 20 distortion pedals) in my studio!!

>wawah~ was an object on the ispw, which is virtually identical to 
>reson~ in msp. I think the compatibility lib version was simply an 
>abstraction with reson~ inside it! reson~ will be a lot easier to 
>use in this sort of context than biquad~.

I tried all kind of versions - biquad~, 2 biquads in cascade, reson~, 
wahwah, resonators~ ....

giving the same parameters (or almost the same, as i am not sure what 
would be the same Q for biquad and reson...)  i got very different 
sounds..

reson~ does not sound the same as wahwah - reson is much "clearer" - 
i was "deceived" by  biquad~ (too polite) and 2 biquads did not had a 
sound i liked....

actually the nicest results ( to my ears!!) were obtained either with 
reson, or with fffb~ - building 5 parallel whas, slightly (and 
randomly) detuned...

> bujt then i have 5 real whawhas (and 20 distortion pedals) in my studio!!

>
>
> bujt then i have 5 real whawhas (and 20 distortion pedals) in my studio!!
So what do you break our b***s ?! ;-O
>
> all the best
>
> kasper


>>bujt then i have 5 real whawhas (and 20 distortion pedals) in my studio!!

'cause i want a "virtual" wha !!! - much easier to carry around, and 

then it can go lower/higher etc than the real one

and the one i just did with a fffb~ 5 - is something you can NOT do 

in the real world (i already did couple 2 real whawhas, physically, 

but 5.... un less you have super huge feet !!! ;-)

>>bujt then i have 5 real whawhas (and 20 distortion pedals) in my studio!!
>So what do you break our b***s ?! ;-O
>>
>>

'cause i want a "virtual" wha !!! - much easier to carry around, and 
then it can go lower/higher etc  than the real one

and the one i just did with a fffb~ 5 - is something you can NOT do 
in the real world (i already did couple 2 real whawhas, physically, 
but 5.... un less you have super huge feet !!! ;-)

Quote: Kasper T Toeplitz wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 15:34

----------------------------------------------------

> 2/ how come os9 object (audio object) works on osX??

Objects that only talk to Max/MSP and don't talk directly to the Operating System have always been happy to run unchanged on both OS X and pre-X.

For those who aren't programmers, it may be non-obvious why, when, and which externals needed to be updated or not. In a pinch, try it and if it works, it works (corollary: si qu'il ne marche pas, alors il ne marche pas). I guess, off-hand, that about 10% of existing externals were able to run without change across OS 9/OS X. And about 0% of externals run without out change across OS X/XP -)

Quote: Kasper T Toeplitz wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 15:34
----------------------------------------------------
> 2/ how come os9 object (audio object) works on osX??

Objects that only talk to Max/MSP and don't talk directly to the Operating System have always been happy to run unchanged on both OS X and pre-X. 

while a wha is quite simple in principle, the hardest part is tweaking

filter parameters in order to make it sound the way you want. It is

hard of course to emulate analog warmth in digital domain...especially

if wha madness of electric M Davis is the aesthetic reference as it

was for me.. I have been enough satisfied by using 2 biquad filters

but in parallel non in cascade configuration, operating in partially

The aim was trying to get me an electro harmonix bassballs-ish thing

> then it can go lower/higher etc than the real one

while a wha is quite simple in principle, the hardest part is tweaking
filter parameters in order to make it sound the way you want. It is
hard of course to emulate analog warmth in digital domain...especially
if wha madness of electric M Davis is the aesthetic reference as it
was for me.. I have been enough satisfied by using 2 biquad filters
but in parallel non in cascade configuration, operating in partially
overlapped frequency ranges.
The aim was trying to get me an electro harmonix bassballs-ish thing
but, like you say,
> much easier to carry around, and
> then it can go lower/higher etc  than the real one

On 25 May 2006, at 04:51, Peter Castine wrote:

> Objects that only talk to Max/MSP and don't talk directly to the 

> Operating System have always been happy to run unchanged on both OS 

Mostly: as I recall, the linkage to MathLib broke some objects.

Besides, an object can be both happy and wrong: the thread-safety 

conditions are more rigorous in OS X, even though old code will run.

nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- 

> Objects that only talk to Max/MSP and don't talk directly to the  
> Operating System have always been happy to run unchanged on both OS  
> X and pre-X.

Besides, an object can be both happy and wrong: the thread-safety  
conditions are more rigorous in OS X, even though old code will run.

   nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http:// 
www.cassiel.com


I'm using biquad~ with a signal connected to the 5th inlet in order 

to control b1 at signal rate. It turns out that this value is applied 

later (and therefor not synchronous to the signal coming in to the 

left inlet of biquad~). After some experiments I figured out that the 

delay of b1 corresponds to the signal vector size. I haven't tested 

if the same problem occurs with the other inlets of biquad~. It would 

be a pleasure if this problem can be solved!

I'm using biquad~ with a signal connected to the 5th inlet in order  
to control b1 at signal rate. It turns out that this value is applied  
later (and therefor not synchronous to the signal coming in to the  
left inlet of biquad~). After some experiments I figured out that the  
delay of b1 corresponds to the signal vector size. I haven't tested  
if the same problem occurs with the other inlets of biquad~. It would  
be a pleasure if this problem can be solved!

wha wha?