wha wha?


    May 24 2006 | 10:56 am
    hi
    i_thought_ i remembred a "jimmies" patch which was a pretty convincing wha-wha...
    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~, or something more??
    (a wha is a band pass, right?? or a resonant low-pass??)
    or does anyone have a good exemple??
    many thanks
    kasper -- Kasper T. Toeplitz noise, composition, bass, computer http://www.sleazeArt.com

    • May 24 2006 | 11:18 am
      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.
    • May 24 2006 | 12:38 pm
      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).
      Ben
    • May 24 2006 | 1:34 pm
      ok, thanks
      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)
      so the questions now are
      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??
      many thanks
      kasper -- Kasper T. Toeplitz noise, composition, bass, computer http://www.sleazeArt.com
    • May 24 2006 | 2:16 pm
    • May 24 2006 | 2:39 pm
      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~.
      Best
      L
      Lawrence Casserley - lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk Lawrence Electronic Operations - www.lcasserley.co.uk Colourscape Music Festivals - www.colourscape.org.uk
    • May 24 2006 | 3:55 pm
      >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!!
      all the best
      kasper -- Kasper T. Toeplitz noise, composition, bass, computer http://www.sleazeArt.com
    • May 24 2006 | 4:44 pm
      > > > 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
    • May 24 2006 | 4:58 pm
      >>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 !!! ;-)
      best
      kasper
    • May 25 2006 | 3:51 am
      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 -)
      Best -- Peter
    • May 25 2006 | 7:36 am
      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
      ciao d.
    • May 25 2006 | 9:02 am
      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 > X and pre-X.
      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.
      -- N.
      nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http:// www.cassiel.com
    • Jan 29 2007 | 10:34 pm
      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!
      best,
      Edwin macbook 10.4.8 maxmsp 4.6.2