Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
marius schebella wrote: >Andy Farnell wrote: > > Okay thanks for nfo. > > > > > > @ Miller, please, could we get [abs~] and [ln~] into vanilla. > > I think we all agree they are bread and butter objects. > > >and >~, >=~, <~, <=~ I can't get those objects to instantiate with pd-extended on Ubuntu, although some other zexy objects load OK, maybe it relates to the funny characters in the name? They also don't work on WinXP but that might be for another reason... Also I just committed a rojo~ object in svn externals/mrpeach, it uses the Box Muller method to generate red noise, and has scale and alpha inlets to adjust the quality with. The output looks good using the binner abstraction. Martin ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
Andy Farnell wrote: > Okay thanks for nfo. > > > @ Miller, please, could we get [abs~] and [ln~] into vanilla. > I think we all agree they are bread and butter objects. and >~, >=~, <~, <=~ thnks, marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 16:21 +, Andy Farnell wrote: > @ Miller, please, could we get [abs~] and [ln~] into vanilla. > I think we all agree they are bread and butter objects. i do agree. btw: thank you all for this very interesting thread. it was very insightful. i really liked following it, although i didn't actively participate. roman ___ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
Okay thanks for nfo. @ Miller, please, could we get [abs~] and [ln~] into vanilla. I think we all agree they are bread and butter objects. cheers, Andy On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:59:08 +0100 Steffen Juul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey Andy, > > On 16/03/2008, at 23.12, Andy Farnell wrote: > > > I just neatened that up into an abstration + help > > Thanks for wrapping it up. > > > All vanilla > > I don't think [ln~] is vanilla. But [expr~ ln($v1)] could maybe do, > as it's shipped with vanilla. > > Best, Steffen -- Use the source ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
Hey Andy, On 16/03/2008, at 23.12, Andy Farnell wrote: > I just neatened that up into an abstration + help Thanks for wrapping it up. > All vanilla I don't think [ln~] is vanilla. But [expr~ ln($v1)] could maybe do, as it's shipped with vanilla. Best, Steffen ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise - Rain Sound
Hey Alberto, Thanks for the ideas. What this bit is for.. its not the noisy background you get to rain, 1/x noise (everyone loves that sound, sometimes called "comfort noise"), but I'm looking at the effect of very light rain when it's on your window and you can hear every individual drop. Apart from the soft pressure signature something else tells you it's rain within a few seconds, and that's the distribution For analysis of the droplet signature "COMPUTATIONAL REAL-TIME SOUND SYNTHESIS OF RAIN" by Stanley J. Miklavcic, Andreas Zita and Per Arvidsson Those guys go straight for a cheeky physical model via the wave equation. Outrageous overkill, but great to know. Many papers from environmental scientists on spectra, because listening to the spectra and intensity underwater we can measure rainfall out at sea (to predict storms, as well as using RADAR and satelites). So I collect stuff like this too "Intercomparison of ambient acoustic spectra in inland and coastal waters" (Quartly, Shannon, Guymer, Birch Campbell) What would be nice are other studies of rain sound done from different perspectives (artistic, musical, etc) good wishes, Andy On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:24:44 +0100 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Andy Farnell wrote: > > > JFYI the application is rainfall. Many papers I read describe > > rainfall as Gaussian. > > maybe mine is a simplistic approach, but shouldn't this be > one of the cases in which measuring the spectrum of true > rainfall sounds and trying to emulate it with one of > spectrum matching techniques provides a good approach? > > > I know from physical analysis that raindrops are uniform > in size > > and velocity for any local sample, so I've realised this > distribution > > is about how they fall within an area and pondering how a > > distribution can be Gaussian in 2D. > > Do they take into account the fact that near drops have > high frequency content which far ones have high frequency > attenuation (and they sum together)? Just thinking... > > Which references do you have about this issue? > > Several months ago I wrote a patch for the generation > of colored noise, maybe it can be helful here... > https://puredata.info/Members/AlbertoZ/ColoredNoise/ > > > AlbertoZ > > --- > http://puredata.org/Members/AlbertoZ > http://alberto.zin.googlepages.com/ > > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Use the source ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise - Rain Sound
Hi Andy, Andy Farnell wrote: > JFYI the application is rainfall. Many papers I read describe > rainfall as Gaussian. maybe mine is a simplistic approach, but shouldn't this be one of the cases in which measuring the spectrum of true rainfall sounds and trying to emulate it with one of spectrum matching techniques provides a good approach? > I know from physical analysis that raindrops are uniform in size > and velocity for any local sample, so I've realised this distribution > is about how they fall within an area and pondering how a > distribution can be Gaussian in 2D. Do they take into account the fact that near drops have high frequency content which far ones have high frequency attenuation (and they sum together)? Just thinking... Which references do you have about this issue? Several months ago I wrote a patch for the generation of colored noise, maybe it can be helful here... https://puredata.info/Members/AlbertoZ/ColoredNoise/ AlbertoZ --- http://puredata.org/Members/AlbertoZ http://alberto.zin.googlepages.com/ ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:11:50 -0500 "Charles Henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My interest in making an impulse train is to make the impulses, which > will have subtle deviations about a central frequency, and process > them through a filter (formant). Would be useful. It's certainly common, saw this recently looking at engines. A petrol engine is timed by the spark, but the sputter you get with a desiel engine seems to come from the ignition being a thermodynamic property of the compression, sometimes its a bit early or late in the cycle, but the chance of being very early or late falls off rapidly around a point. -- Use the source ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
One thing I've been thinking of lately for pd is to synthesize a impulse train with the poisson process. Many natural phenomena, like the timing of rain drops, can be simulated with the poisson process. It's just one of those ubitquitous relations that pops up everywhere. A poisson process models a chain of events that occur with a density with respect to time. Each of the inter-event times is an exponential variable, which is easily calculatable, just as in the previous example. Take U1 a uniform variable on (0,1] , and calculate ln(U1). You've simulated a draw (observed value) from the exponential distribution, just like that. So, it's easy to make a message chain which does this calculation and outputs a series of bangs. What confuses me is whether it will be accurate in timing, and how to turn it into a series of impulses. I'm not sure I know how to do the rest of this problem. My interest in making an impulse train is to make the impulses, which will have subtle deviations about a central frequency, and process them through a filter (formant). I wonder what the spectrum of the poisson process looks like... Chuck ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
# Hi, sorry for jumping into the conversation. I am doing my statistical physics homework and can not read whole mails just skim read them and saw terms like "uniform distribution" and "gaussian distribution". I thought it could be worth to mention the "central limit theorem" which says that the cumulative effect of every kind of distribution will become a gaussian distribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustration_of_the_central_limit_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem -ugur guney- On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Andy Farnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wow, that's a gorgeous demonstraton Martin! > > Everything becomes clear as time -> infinity :) > > And somehow our little Earthling brains are able to > spot this signature distribution as we listen to rainfall. > > Now I'm getting how uniform fall leads to > a Gaussian bell around the mean for an area over time. > > Thanks. > > > Chuck, I'm sorry I couldn't follow all of your derivation > of Box Muller, but thanks for the analysis. I think we agree > it's a neat trick for an efficient source of WGN. > > thanks all, > > Andy > > > On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:54:29 -0400 > > > Martin Peach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here's a histogram generator (binner) that shows the distribution of > > [gaussianoise]. Using it I can quickly see that [gaussianoise2] is too > > peaked around zero and that [gaussianoise3] chops the tails off when the > > scale is low. > > If you have uniformly distributed raindrops falling, any given area will > > receive a number of raindrops that clusters about the mean in a normal > > distribution, just as if you first bin the number of occurrences of each > > value of white noise, then bin the resulting counts, the histogram of > > the counts will look like a bell curve centered at the mean count. > > > > Martin > > > > Andy Farnell wrote: > > > > > > GEM is broken here, but thanks for the info Marius. > > > I'm reading through the docs for R at the moment. > > > It makes lovely plots, but haven't figured how to get > > > my data in to it yet... > > > > > > JFYI the application is rainfall. Many papers I read describe > > > rainfall as Gaussian. > > > > > > I know from physical analysis that raindrops are uniform in size > > > and velocity for any local sample, so I've realised this distribution > > > is about how they fall within an area and pondering how a > > > distribution can be Gaussian in 2D. > > > > > > Thing is, I can't figure out any good reason why rain should > > > by anything other than uniformly distributed ! :( > > > > > > When I use Martins second patch with a thresholding function > > > to trigger droplet sounds, it does sound a lot more like > > > real rainfall than a uniformly triggered model. > > > > > > I'm in one of those grey areas where I half understand what I'm > > > doing, which is a dangerous place to be. > > > > > > Anybody know of cool papers I might have missed on the > > > distribution of rain drops and the effect on their sound? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:43:34 -0400 > > > marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> from the first equation that andy posted, I produced a gem > > >> representation. the box muller noise seems wrong, because it does not > > >> use the whole range but is shifted to the negative side. > > >> note, this is not a distribution of frequencies, but of noise values.. > > >> marius. > > >> > > >> Martin Peach wrote: > > >>> Oh no that's wrong isn't it :( > > >>> The log is necessary to keep the distribution normal, and the range is > > >>> going to get wider the closer to zero the radius is allowed to get. > > >>> The attached patch has a scale adjustment... > > >>> Still I wonder what kind of distribution gaussianoise2 gives, it's not > > >>> just white. > > >>> > > >>> Martin > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Martin Peach wrote: > > Charles Henry wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Martin Peach > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> (gaussianoise has occasional values that exceed [-1 ... 1], which I > > >> suppose is normal...white noise is always on [-1...1]) > > > That's true. With the Box-Muller method, there is the log(~U1) term, > > > but you can always just add a small value to U1, which will truncate > > > your distribution. The size of the small value can be calculated to > > > fit with any given threshold. > > > > > I think it's really because the Box-Muller method selects random > > numbers in pairs which map to points in a unit square on the plane, > > but then selects only those points which are inside the unit circle, > > something that the pd patch doesn't do (how to resample points in a > > dsp vector until they are in range?). The attached patch shows the > > straightforward way of
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
I just neatened that up into an abstration + help All vanilla Replaced [abs~] More efficient [q8-sqrt~] seens fine No need for pi multiplier as is implicit in [cos~] radians (?) Martins histogram in separate GOP abs If I made a mistake please correct and repost. a. On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:13:04 + Andy Farnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wow, that's a gorgeous demonstraton Martin! > > Everything becomes clear as time -> infinity :) > > And somehow our little Earthling brains are able to > spot this signature distribution as we listen to rainfall. > > Now I'm getting how uniform fall leads to > a Gaussian bell around the mean for an area over time. > > Thanks. > > > Chuck, I'm sorry I couldn't follow all of your derivation > of Box Muller, but thanks for the analysis. I think we agree > it's a neat trick for an efficient source of WGN. > > thanks all, > > Andy > > > On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:54:29 -0400 > Martin Peach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here's a histogram generator (binner) that shows the distribution of > > [gaussianoise]. Using it I can quickly see that [gaussianoise2] is too > > peaked around zero and that [gaussianoise3] chops the tails off when the > > scale is low. > > If you have uniformly distributed raindrops falling, any given area will > > receive a number of raindrops that clusters about the mean in a normal > > distribution, just as if you first bin the number of occurrences of each > > value of white noise, then bin the resulting counts, the histogram of > > the counts will look like a bell curve centered at the mean count. > > > > Martin > > > > Andy Farnell wrote: > > > > > > GEM is broken here, but thanks for the info Marius. > > > I'm reading through the docs for R at the moment. > > > It makes lovely plots, but haven't figured how to get > > > my data in to it yet... > > > > > > JFYI the application is rainfall. Many papers I read describe > > > rainfall as Gaussian. > > > > > > I know from physical analysis that raindrops are uniform in size > > > and velocity for any local sample, so I've realised this distribution > > > is about how they fall within an area and pondering how a > > > distribution can be Gaussian in 2D. > > > > > > Thing is, I can't figure out any good reason why rain should > > > by anything other than uniformly distributed ! :( > > > > > > When I use Martins second patch with a thresholding function > > > to trigger droplet sounds, it does sound a lot more like > > > real rainfall than a uniformly triggered model. > > > > > > I'm in one of those grey areas where I half understand what I'm > > > doing, which is a dangerous place to be. > > > > > > Anybody know of cool papers I might have missed on the > > > distribution of rain drops and the effect on their sound? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:43:34 -0400 > > > marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> from the first equation that andy posted, I produced a gem > > >> representation. the box muller noise seems wrong, because it does not > > >> use the whole range but is shifted to the negative side. > > >> note, this is not a distribution of frequencies, but of noise values.. > > >> marius. > > >> > > >> Martin Peach wrote: > > >>> Oh no that's wrong isn't it :( > > >>> The log is necessary to keep the distribution normal, and the range is > > >>> going to get wider the closer to zero the radius is allowed to get. > > >>> The attached patch has a scale adjustment... > > >>> Still I wonder what kind of distribution gaussianoise2 gives, it's not > > >>> just white. > > >>> > > >>> Martin > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Martin Peach wrote: > > Charles Henry wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Martin Peach > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> (gaussianoise has occasional values that exceed [-1 ... 1], which I > > >> suppose is normal...white noise is always on [-1...1]) > > > That's true. With the Box-Muller method, there is the log(~U1) term, > > > but you can always just add a small value to U1, which will truncate > > > your distribution. The size of the small value can be calculated to > > > fit with any given threshold. > > > > > I think it's really because the Box-Muller method selects random > > numbers in pairs which map to points in a unit square on the plane, > > but then selects only those points which are inside the unit circle, > > something that the pd patch doesn't do (how to resample points in a > > dsp vector until they are in range?). The attached patch shows the > > straightforward way of doing it by simply selecting a random radius > > and angle and returning the resulting y coordinate as the random > > number. The results are always on [-1,1]. > > I don't think sin~ will be any slower than log~. > > > > Martin > > > > > >
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
Wow, that's a gorgeous demonstraton Martin! Everything becomes clear as time -> infinity :) And somehow our little Earthling brains are able to spot this signature distribution as we listen to rainfall. Now I'm getting how uniform fall leads to a Gaussian bell around the mean for an area over time. Thanks. Chuck, I'm sorry I couldn't follow all of your derivation of Box Muller, but thanks for the analysis. I think we agree it's a neat trick for an efficient source of WGN. thanks all, Andy On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:54:29 -0400 Martin Peach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's a histogram generator (binner) that shows the distribution of > [gaussianoise]. Using it I can quickly see that [gaussianoise2] is too > peaked around zero and that [gaussianoise3] chops the tails off when the > scale is low. > If you have uniformly distributed raindrops falling, any given area will > receive a number of raindrops that clusters about the mean in a normal > distribution, just as if you first bin the number of occurrences of each > value of white noise, then bin the resulting counts, the histogram of > the counts will look like a bell curve centered at the mean count. > > Martin > > Andy Farnell wrote: > > > > GEM is broken here, but thanks for the info Marius. > > I'm reading through the docs for R at the moment. > > It makes lovely plots, but haven't figured how to get > > my data in to it yet... > > > > JFYI the application is rainfall. Many papers I read describe > > rainfall as Gaussian. > > > > I know from physical analysis that raindrops are uniform in size > > and velocity for any local sample, so I've realised this distribution > > is about how they fall within an area and pondering how a > > distribution can be Gaussian in 2D. > > > > Thing is, I can't figure out any good reason why rain should > > by anything other than uniformly distributed ! :( > > > > When I use Martins second patch with a thresholding function > > to trigger droplet sounds, it does sound a lot more like > > real rainfall than a uniformly triggered model. > > > > I'm in one of those grey areas where I half understand what I'm > > doing, which is a dangerous place to be. > > > > Anybody know of cool papers I might have missed on the > > distribution of rain drops and the effect on their sound? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:43:34 -0400 > > marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> from the first equation that andy posted, I produced a gem > >> representation. the box muller noise seems wrong, because it does not > >> use the whole range but is shifted to the negative side. > >> note, this is not a distribution of frequencies, but of noise values.. > >> marius. > >> > >> Martin Peach wrote: > >>> Oh no that's wrong isn't it :( > >>> The log is necessary to keep the distribution normal, and the range is > >>> going to get wider the closer to zero the radius is allowed to get. > >>> The attached patch has a scale adjustment... > >>> Still I wonder what kind of distribution gaussianoise2 gives, it's not > >>> just white. > >>> > >>> Martin > >>> > >>> > >>> Martin Peach wrote: > Charles Henry wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Martin Peach > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> (gaussianoise has occasional values that exceed [-1 ... 1], which I > >> suppose is normal...white noise is always on [-1...1]) > > That's true. With the Box-Muller method, there is the log(~U1) term, > > but you can always just add a small value to U1, which will truncate > > your distribution. The size of the small value can be calculated to > > fit with any given threshold. > > > I think it's really because the Box-Muller method selects random > numbers in pairs which map to points in a unit square on the plane, > but then selects only those points which are inside the unit circle, > something that the pd patch doesn't do (how to resample points in a > dsp vector until they are in range?). The attached patch shows the > straightforward way of doing it by simply selecting a random radius > and angle and returning the resulting y coordinate as the random > number. The results are always on [-1,1]. > I don't think sin~ will be any slower than log~. > > Martin > > > > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> PD-list@iem.at mailing list > >>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >> > > > > > > -- Use the source
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
> So, we can find g(r) independently by integrating with respect to theta. > > we get g(r)= 1/sigma^2 * e^-(r^2/sigma^2) Ah, here's a missing factor of 2 in the exponent. That should be g(r)= 1/sigma^2 * e^-(r^2/ ( 2*sigma^2) ) And the correct formulae are x=r*cos(theta) = sigma * sqrt(-2 * ln (1-U1) ) * cos (2*pi*U2) y=r*sin(theta) = sigma * sqrt(-2 * ln (1-U1) ) * sin (2*pi*U2) I thought I missed something... ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
Here's a histogram generator (binner) that shows the distribution of [gaussianoise]. Using it I can quickly see that [gaussianoise2] is too peaked around zero and that [gaussianoise3] chops the tails off when the scale is low. If you have uniformly distributed raindrops falling, any given area will receive a number of raindrops that clusters about the mean in a normal distribution, just as if you first bin the number of occurrences of each value of white noise, then bin the resulting counts, the histogram of the counts will look like a bell curve centered at the mean count. Martin Andy Farnell wrote: GEM is broken here, but thanks for the info Marius. I'm reading through the docs for R at the moment. It makes lovely plots, but haven't figured how to get my data in to it yet... JFYI the application is rainfall. Many papers I read describe rainfall as Gaussian. I know from physical analysis that raindrops are uniform in size and velocity for any local sample, so I've realised this distribution is about how they fall within an area and pondering how a distribution can be Gaussian in 2D. Thing is, I can't figure out any good reason why rain should by anything other than uniformly distributed ! :( When I use Martins second patch with a thresholding function to trigger droplet sounds, it does sound a lot more like real rainfall than a uniformly triggered model. I'm in one of those grey areas where I half understand what I'm doing, which is a dangerous place to be. Anybody know of cool papers I might have missed on the distribution of rain drops and the effect on their sound? Thanks, Andy On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:43:34 -0400 marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: from the first equation that andy posted, I produced a gem representation. the box muller noise seems wrong, because it does not use the whole range but is shifted to the negative side. note, this is not a distribution of frequencies, but of noise values.. marius. Martin Peach wrote: Oh no that's wrong isn't it :( The log is necessary to keep the distribution normal, and the range is going to get wider the closer to zero the radius is allowed to get. The attached patch has a scale adjustment... Still I wonder what kind of distribution gaussianoise2 gives, it's not just white. Martin Martin Peach wrote: Charles Henry wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Martin Peach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (gaussianoise has occasional values that exceed [-1 ... 1], which I suppose is normal...white noise is always on [-1...1]) That's true. With the Box-Muller method, there is the log(~U1) term, but you can always just add a small value to U1, which will truncate your distribution. The size of the small value can be calculated to fit with any given threshold. I think it's really because the Box-Muller method selects random numbers in pairs which map to points in a unit square on the plane, but then selects only those points which are inside the unit circle, something that the pd patch doesn't do (how to resample points in a dsp vector until they are in range?). The attached patch shows the straightforward way of doing it by simply selecting a random radius and angle and returning the resulting y coordinate as the random number. The results are always on [-1,1]. I don't think sin~ will be any slower than log~. Martin ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list #N canvas 318 170 625 753 10; #X obj -243 -312 tabread bbb; #X obj -243 -376 tgl 15 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1 -1 0 1; #X obj -243 -290 moses 0; #X obj -243 -334 f; #X obj -219 -334 + 1; #X obj -195 -334 sel 100; #X msg -146 -334 0; #X obj -204 210 vsl 15 128 0 127 0 0 empty empty empty 0 -9 0 10 -257985 -13381 -1 12700 1; #X obj -189 210 vsl 15 128 0 127 0 0 empty empty empty 0 -9 0 10 -4034 -13381 -1 12700 1; #X obj -174 210 vsl 15 128 0 127 0 0 empty empty empty 0 -9 0 10 -4034 -13381 -1 12700 1; #X obj -159 210 vsl 15 128 0 127 0 0 empty empty empty 0 -9 0 10 -4034 -13381 -1 12700 1; #X obj -144 210 vsl 15 128 0 127 0 0 empty empty empty 0 -9 0 10 -4034 -13381 -1 12700 1; #X obj -129 210 vsl 15 128 0 127 0 0 empty empty empty 0 -9 0 10 -4034 -13381 -1 12700 1; #X obj -114 210 vsl 15 128 0 127 0 0 empty empty empty 0 -9 0 10 -4034 -13381 -1 12700 1; #X obj -99 210 vsl 15 128 0 127 0 0 empty empty empty 0 -9 0 10 -4034 -13381 -1 12700 1; #X obj -84 210 vsl 15 128 0 127 0 0 empty empty empty 0 -9 0 10 -4034 -13381 -1 12700 1; #X obj -243 -269 * -1; #X obj -69 210 vsl 15 128 0 127 0 0 empty empty empty 0 -9
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Charles Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > our cdf (cumulative dist function) > G(Z)=P( Z > G(Z)=1 - e^-(Z/sigma^2) > Take U1=Z on [0,1] , take U2 on [0,1] Actually, it makes more sense for U1 to be distributed on [0, 1) Because we need to take Z to be a finite number, the range of G(Z) is [0,1) Then, the fine details start to make a litte more sense. > Notice, the sigma comes out in front, and the variable (1-U1) is > distributed uniformly on [0,1] also. Hence, it can be simplified to > another uniform variable U3, or whatever. Actually, this would say, (1-U1) is uniformly distributed on (0,1] which is more consistent with what we want, since we take the ln of this number. Chuck ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
(sorry for the duplicate, Martin!) The Box-Muller method (I've always thought it was just Ross who did this one) is a classic trick. It probably goes back even to Gauss--who knows and who cares pdf of Gaussian: f(x)= k * e^-(x^2/ (2*sigma^2)) k is a normalization constant--which we will determine The trick is, you can't integrate f(x) directly. What we do is create a joint probability distribution of g(x,y)=f(x)*f(y). x and y are independently distributed. Then, if we integrate g(x,y) on the whole plane, we get the square of the distribution, and we can find the square of the normalization constant. g(x,y)=f(x)= k * e^-(x^2/ (2*sigma^2)) * k * e^-(y^2/ (2*sigma^2)) =k^2 * e^-(x^2 + y^2 / (2*sigma^2)) And it's simple to change to polar coordinates: x^2+y^2=r^2 and We won't even need to care about the rest. integral( r=0 to inf, theta=0 to 2pi, g(r,theta)*r*dr ) <-the r*dr term makes this integrable =integral( r=0 to inf, theta=0 to 2pi, k^2 * e^-(r^2 / (2*sigma^2)) * r * dr dtheta ) Integrate by theta, and make the substitution u=r^2 / 2, du= r*dr = 2*pi * k^2 * integral( u=0 to inf, e^-(u/sigma^2) du ) = - 2*pi * sigma^2 * k^2 * (e^-(u/sigma^2) evaluated at u=inf and u=0) = 2*pi * sigma^2 * k^2 so, for normalization: 1 = 2*pi * sigma^2 * k^2 , k=1/sqrt(2*pi*sigma^2) So, here's the method, and the reason it works. In g(r, theta) , r and theta are independent. Theta doesn't even appear in the distribution. And this means that theta is uniformly distributed on [0,2*pi). So, we can find g(r) independently by integrating with respect to theta. we get g(r)= 1/sigma^2 * e^-(r^2/sigma^2) Now, r^2 is exponentially distributed on 0 to inf. What we're going to do is create the cumultive distribution function of r^2 which takes values on [0,1]. Then, we can choose a value on [0,1] and find the corresponding value of r^2 (and inverse function!) our cdf (cumulative dist function) G(Z)=P( Z wrote: > Oh no that's wrong isn't it :( > The log is necessary to keep the distribution normal, and the range is > going to get wider the closer to zero the radius is allowed to get. > The attached patch has a scale adjustment... > Still I wonder what kind of distribution gaussianoise2 gives, it's not > just white. > > Martin ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
GEM is broken here, but thanks for the info Marius. I'm reading through the docs for R at the moment. It makes lovely plots, but haven't figured how to get my data in to it yet... JFYI the application is rainfall. Many papers I read describe rainfall as Gaussian. I know from physical analysis that raindrops are uniform in size and velocity for any local sample, so I've realised this distribution is about how they fall within an area and pondering how a distribution can be Gaussian in 2D. Thing is, I can't figure out any good reason why rain should by anything other than uniformly distributed ! :( When I use Martins second patch with a thresholding function to trigger droplet sounds, it does sound a lot more like real rainfall than a uniformly triggered model. I'm in one of those grey areas where I half understand what I'm doing, which is a dangerous place to be. Anybody know of cool papers I might have missed on the distribution of rain drops and the effect on their sound? Thanks, Andy On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:43:34 -0400 marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > from the first equation that andy posted, I produced a gem > representation. the box muller noise seems wrong, because it does not > use the whole range but is shifted to the negative side. > note, this is not a distribution of frequencies, but of noise values.. > marius. > > Martin Peach wrote: > > Oh no that's wrong isn't it :( > > The log is necessary to keep the distribution normal, and the range is > > going to get wider the closer to zero the radius is allowed to get. > > The attached patch has a scale adjustment... > > Still I wonder what kind of distribution gaussianoise2 gives, it's not > > just white. > > > > Martin > > > > > > Martin Peach wrote: > >> Charles Henry wrote: > >>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Martin Peach > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (gaussianoise has occasional values that exceed [-1 ... 1], which I > suppose is normal...white noise is always on [-1...1]) > >>> > >>> That's true. With the Box-Muller method, there is the log(~U1) term, > >>> but you can always just add a small value to U1, which will truncate > >>> your distribution. The size of the small value can be calculated to > >>> fit with any given threshold. > >>> > >> > >> I think it's really because the Box-Muller method selects random > >> numbers in pairs which map to points in a unit square on the plane, > >> but then selects only those points which are inside the unit circle, > >> something that the pd patch doesn't do (how to resample points in a > >> dsp vector until they are in range?). The attached patch shows the > >> straightforward way of doing it by simply selecting a random radius > >> and angle and returning the resulting y coordinate as the random > >> number. The results are always on [-1,1]. > >> I don't think sin~ will be any slower than log~. > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> PD-list@iem.at mailing list > >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > -- Use the source ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
from the first equation that andy posted, I produced a gem representation. the box muller noise seems wrong, because it does not use the whole range but is shifted to the negative side. note, this is not a distribution of frequencies, but of noise values.. marius. Martin Peach wrote: Oh no that's wrong isn't it :( The log is necessary to keep the distribution normal, and the range is going to get wider the closer to zero the radius is allowed to get. The attached patch has a scale adjustment... Still I wonder what kind of distribution gaussianoise2 gives, it's not just white. Martin Martin Peach wrote: Charles Henry wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Martin Peach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (gaussianoise has occasional values that exceed [-1 ... 1], which I suppose is normal...white noise is always on [-1...1]) That's true. With the Box-Muller method, there is the log(~U1) term, but you can always just add a small value to U1, which will truncate your distribution. The size of the small value can be calculated to fit with any given threshold. I think it's really because the Box-Muller method selects random numbers in pairs which map to points in a unit square on the plane, but then selects only those points which are inside the unit circle, something that the pd patch doesn't do (how to resample points in a dsp vector until they are in range?). The attached patch shows the straightforward way of doing it by simply selecting a random radius and angle and returning the resulting y coordinate as the random number. The results are always on [-1,1]. I don't think sin~ will be any slower than log~. Martin ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list noise-distr.pd Description: application/extension-pd ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
Oh no that's wrong isn't it :( The log is necessary to keep the distribution normal, and the range is going to get wider the closer to zero the radius is allowed to get. The attached patch has a scale adjustment... Still I wonder what kind of distribution gaussianoise2 gives, it's not just white. Martin Martin Peach wrote: Charles Henry wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Martin Peach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (gaussianoise has occasional values that exceed [-1 ... 1], which I suppose is normal...white noise is always on [-1...1]) That's true. With the Box-Muller method, there is the log(~U1) term, but you can always just add a small value to U1, which will truncate your distribution. The size of the small value can be calculated to fit with any given threshold. I think it's really because the Box-Muller method selects random numbers in pairs which map to points in a unit square on the plane, but then selects only those points which are inside the unit circle, something that the pd patch doesn't do (how to resample points in a dsp vector until they are in range?). The attached patch shows the straightforward way of doing it by simply selecting a random radius and angle and returning the resulting y coordinate as the random number. The results are always on [-1,1]. I don't think sin~ will be any slower than log~. Martin ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list #N canvas 767 150 450 461 10; #X obj 65 -59 noise~; #X obj 135 192 tabwrite~ bbb; #X obj 145 159 table bbb; #X obj 135 137 bng 15 250 50 0 empty empty write 17 7 0 10 -4034 -13381 -13381; #X obj 75 258 dac~; #X obj 274 43 noise~; #X obj 274 64 *~ 3.14159; #X obj 275 98 sin~; #X obj 85 115 *~; #X obj 84 193 *~; #X obj 21 34 vsl 15 128 0 1 0 1 empty empty volume 0 -9 0 10 -4034 -13381 -13381 3800 1; #X text 278 79 random angle on [-pi \, +pi]; #X obj 64 -38 abs~; #X obj 64 23 ln~; #X obj 64 77 sqrt~; #X obj 64 46 *~ -2; #X obj 64 -18 *~ 0.999; #X obj 65 3 +~ 0.001; #X text 103 77 random radius on [0 \, big]; #X obj 241 -14 -; #X obj 230 -62 t b f; #X msg 231 -41 1; #X floatatom 241 8 5 0 0 0 - - -; #X floatatom 230 -83 5 0 0 0 - - -; #X obj 233 -105 hsl 128 15 0 1 0 1 empty empty scale -2 -8 0 10 -4034 -13381 -13381 2000 1; #X obj 135 -101 metro 100; #X obj 135 -121 tgl 15 0 empty empty plot 17 7 0 10 -4034 -13381 -13381 0 1; #X connect 0 0 12 0; #X connect 3 0 1 0; #X connect 5 0 6 0; #X connect 6 0 7 0; #X connect 7 0 8 1; #X connect 8 0 1 0; #X connect 8 0 9 0; #X connect 9 0 4 0; #X connect 9 0 4 1; #X connect 10 0 9 1; #X connect 12 0 16 0; #X connect 13 0 15 0; #X connect 14 0 8 0; #X connect 15 0 14 0; #X connect 16 0 17 0; #X connect 17 0 13 0; #X connect 19 0 22 0; #X connect 19 0 17 1; #X connect 20 0 21 0; #X connect 20 1 19 1; #X connect 21 0 19 0; #X connect 23 0 20 0; #X connect 23 0 16 1; #X connect 24 0 23 0; #X connect 25 0 3 0; #X connect 26 0 25 0; ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
Charles Henry wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Martin Peach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (gaussianoise has occasional values that exceed [-1 ... 1], which I suppose is normal...white noise is always on [-1...1]) That's true. With the Box-Muller method, there is the log(~U1) term, but you can always just add a small value to U1, which will truncate your distribution. The size of the small value can be calculated to fit with any given threshold. I think it's really because the Box-Muller method selects random numbers in pairs which map to points in a unit square on the plane, but then selects only those points which are inside the unit circle, something that the pd patch doesn't do (how to resample points in a dsp vector until they are in range?). The attached patch shows the straightforward way of doing it by simply selecting a random radius and angle and returning the resulting y coordinate as the random number. The results are always on [-1,1]. I don't think sin~ will be any slower than log~. Martin #N canvas 767 150 450 351 10; #X obj 86 2 noise~; #X obj 135 192 tabwrite~ bbb; #X obj 145 159 table bbb; #X obj 135 137 bng 15 250 50 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1 -1; #X obj 75 258 dac~; #X obj 274 43 noise~; #X obj 274 64 *~ 3.14159; #X obj 275 98 sin~; #X obj 85 115 *~; #X text 151 135 write to table; #X obj 84 193 *~; #X obj 32 30 vsl 15 128 0 1 0 0 empty empty empty 0 -9 0 10 -4034 -13381 -1 2000 1; #X text 89 80 random radius on [-1 \, 1]; #X text 278 79 random angle on [-pi \, +pi]; #X connect 0 0 8 0; #X connect 3 0 1 0; #X connect 5 0 6 0; #X connect 6 0 7 0; #X connect 7 0 8 1; #X connect 8 0 1 0; #X connect 8 0 10 0; #X connect 10 0 4 0; #X connect 10 0 4 1; #X connect 11 0 10 1; ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
Hi, > Could a stats mathematician please help me check this. (attached) > > I'm following the Box Muller formula for getting a cheap Gaussian > distribution (instead of adding up 12 sources a la central limit method). > > http://www.dspguru.com/howto/tech/wgn.htm > > Does this look right? I agree that this method is better than adding up 12 uniform distributions, which is not only inefficient, but not that accurate. Your implementation looks about right, it would get the X but not the Y part of the random normal generation. I am not too sure about the multiplication by 0.5 at the very end, but maybe there is some pd related reason for that. It's not part of the usual formula, but would just have an effect on the scale of the distribution, not the shape. > Also, I have no idea how to check the distribution. My pd knowledge is a bit weak (still a relative beginner), but if you could sample from that stream of random numbers, save the samples into a file and plot a histogram, you could check for approximate normality that way. There are free programs like R (http://www.r-project.org/) available that draw histograms and are available for all platforms, many others as well. > It sounds the same as > uniform noise and looks the same in the spectrograph? What gives? In my experience, it is extremely hard to distinguish different distributions by ear if they are all used for random noise streams. I teach statistics, and one year, trying to combine my music hobby with my work, tried to see if I could get students to recognize different distributions by their sounds...its very difficult if you just let them generate random noise. Some composers like Xenakis used different distributions to control other parameters such as pitch choice, and there, over time, you might recognize say a uniform distribution of 12 tones from one using an approximate normal distribution discretized to these 12 tones, as some tones might be recognized as appearing more often than others. That's just one simple example of random number to musical parameter function, of course. > Do I need to average over a very long time or something to see any > difference? If you want to SEE the difference, you just need a few values from each distribution, plot histograms, and it will be obvious which is a normal, which is a uniform, or Poisson, etc. However, to hear the difference is a trickier proposition. I hope this helps, Lawrence ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Martin Peach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (gaussianoise has occasional values that exceed [-1 ... 1], which I > suppose is normal...white noise is always on [-1...1]) That's true. With the Box-Muller method, there is the log(~U1) term, but you can always just add a small value to U1, which will truncate your distribution. The size of the small value can be calculated to fit with any given threshold. > > With white noise there should be no preferred values but gaussian noise > will have a lot more hovering around zero. > > Martin > > > > > > > Cheers all, > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Andy Farnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, I have no idea how to check the distribution. It sounds the same as > uniform noise and looks the same in the spectrograph? What gives? > Do I need to average over a very long time or something to see any > difference? It should sound the same and look the same spectrally. There was a previous discussion on the list about how noise distributions (uniform vs gaussian pdfs) should sound. Namely, the same :) To see the difference, you could try to calculate kurtosis values! I've never had a good use for that one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurtosis That statistic will show you the difference between Gaussian and uniformly distributed noise, and confirm your distribution. The Box Muller method should be good--that's a very reliable method. Cheers, Chuck > > Cheers all, > > Andy > > -- > Use the source > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
Andy Farnell wrote: > Could a stats mathematician please help me check this. (attached) Well I'm not one but... > > I'm following the Box Muller formula for getting a cheap Gaussian > distribution (instead of adding up 12 sources a la central limit method). > > http://www.dspguru.com/howto/tech/wgn.htm > > Does this look right? > > Also, I have no idea how to check the distribution. It sounds the same as > uniform noise and looks the same in the spectrograph? What gives? > Do I need to average over a very long time or something to see any > difference? The way I understand it, white noise has the characteristic that if you count the number of occurrences of each possible value they will be normally distributed (the bell curve, with most values being near the peak, since all values are equally probable) with any particular value being located at random on the curve -- there is no correlation between a given value and its probability of occurrence. Gaussian noise is distributed so that the values themselves follow the bell curve with the extreme values at the tails of the curve and the median values in the middle (on average of course, any given trial can give weird results). So, to check your distribution you could write some values to a table and then bin them according to value to see if the points around zero occur a lot more often than the points near one and minus one. I tried your patch with [noise~] and [gaussianoise] writing to tables and visually compared the results and it's true you can't hear the difference but you can definitely see it. (gaussianoise has occasional values that exceed [-1 ... 1], which I suppose is normal...white noise is always on [-1...1]) With white noise there should be no preferred values but gaussian noise will have a lot more hovering around zero. Martin > > Cheers all, > > Andy > > > > > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] Box Muller Gaussian noise
Could a stats mathematician please help me check this. (attached) I'm following the Box Muller formula for getting a cheap Gaussian distribution (instead of adding up 12 sources a la central limit method). http://www.dspguru.com/howto/tech/wgn.htm Does this look right? Also, I have no idea how to check the distribution. It sounds the same as uniform noise and looks the same in the spectrograph? What gives? Do I need to average over a very long time or something to see any difference? Cheers all, Andy -- Use the source gaussianoise.pd Description: Binary data ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
