Hi, Julius. I haven't experienced a particular case where this oscillator would be better than others yet but according to table1 in the aforementioned paper it does seem to be the best design, doesn't it? I'm not sure it is computationally heavier than the others.
Though I have a work which is a self-oscillating FDN with frequency shifters in the loops that shift the signals of a very small fraction of Hz. For that, I'd need a very low frequency quadrature oscillator and, according to the table, Biquad, DWG and QSU would not be accurate for that. Cheers, Dario <http://dariosanfilippo.tumblr.com> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 20:39, Julius Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dario, > > I don't see its unique advantage(s). Can you make a case for it over > the oscillators already in oscillators.lib? > > Thanks, > - Julius > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 5:04 AM Dario Sanfilippo > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Described in this paper: https://vicanek.de/articles/QuadOsc.pdf. > > > > If I'm not wrong, it's not in the oscillators library yet so it could be > a good addition. > > > > Cheers, > > Dario > > > > import("stdfaust.lib"); > > quad_osc(f) = tick ~ (_ , _) > > with { > > init = 1-1'; > > w = 2*ma.PI*f/ma.SR; > > k1 = tan(.5*w); > > k2 = 2*k1/(1+k1*k1); > > tick(u, v) = omega-k1*(v+k2*omega) , v+k2*omega > > with { > > omega = (u+init)-k1*v; > > }; > > }; > > process = quad_osc(1000); > > _______________________________________________ > > Faudiostream-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faudiostream-users > > > > -- > > Julius O. Smith III <[email protected]> > Professor of Music and, by courtesy, Electrical Engineering > CCRMA, Stanford University > http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/ >
_______________________________________________ Faudiostream-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faudiostream-users
