Hey Alexandre, I got sound that I liked really quickly out of your patch. Surely a good didactic test.
Regards, Julian On 16 June 2016 at 07:26, Alexandre Torres Porres <por...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2016-06-15 5:09 GMT-03:00 Peter P. <peterpar...@fastmail.com>: > >> Orm's implementation of the random phase might also be cheaper than >> your two fexpr~ for that part. > > > it's just "expr~" not "fexpr~" ;) > > >> You might not have to be conservative with CPU >> usage in your case at all however. >> > > nope, and I need to be more intuitive (as this is a didactic material) and > I consider this to be "simpler" - subjective > > >> It does work and might save cpu compared to fexpr~. >> > > biquad~ is surely cheaper than fexpr~ !!! > > >> In my case I am trying a textbook implementation for now. >> > > yep, that's what I was going for in that example, what you think? If you > have more remarks other than efficiency, I'd like to know. > > cheers > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list