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

    • 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
    • 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
    • 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