Hi Evan,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 03:17:25PM -0500, Evan Balster wrote:
> In the days since my first post, I've had a background train of thought
> going on about this...
>
> So, the value of a DFT bin when using a window of size N is proportional to:
> [image: Inline image 2]
> Where omega is th
Hi Paul,
unfortunately, at this stage, i cannot further specify "audio fx instance". As
you said, it could be literally anything. Possibly the question shouldn't be as
objective as "how many times more powerful is a DSP compared to an ARM", but
rather be a subjective question asking what, giv
Also keep in mind that even in the constant frequency case, you probably
don't want to be constrained to an integer number of samples in your
periods. So you'll probably want to think about some kind of interpolation,
and once you have that it's not clear if this phase drift is really a
problem.
-
On 08/25/2016 04:44 AM, Max K wrote:
Also I yet lack an estimate of how much more audio fx instances a true
DSP can handle compared to an ARM, which is a crucial decision factor.
But what precisely is an "audio fx instance"? That could mean pretty
much anything, from very lightweight operatio
On 26/08/16 18:26, James McCartney wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Michael Gogins
> mailto:michael.gog...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Multiply not increment.
>
> Not phase += increment but phase = index * increment.
>
> Adding lets the error add up also. Multiplying keeps
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Indeed I was thinking that I would
have to wrap the phase somehow or decompose it into an integer and a
fractional part. In the case of resampling, there is actually no period
with which to wrap, but I'm using a circular buffer, so perhaps that's
the natural perio
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Michael Gogins
wrote:
> Multiply not increment.
>
> Not phase += increment but phase = index * increment.
>
> Adding lets the error add up also. Multiplying keeps the error minimal.
>
If you allow frequency modulation, the phase is no longer a line, it is the
int
Often, when you find yourself running out of floating-point precision, it's
a signal to change the way you model your information. In this case, you
have an ever-increasing floating-point variable representing phase.
Generally speaking, phase is a cyclic domain: 0 degrees is equal to 360
degrees
Multiply not increment.
Not phase += increment but phase = index * increment.
Adding lets the error add up also. Multiplying keeps the error minimal.
On Aug 26, 2016 10:10 AM, "Hanns Holger Rutz" wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> probably there is some good knowledge about this, so I'm looking for a
> po
Hi there,
probably there is some good knowledge about this, so I'm looking for a
pointer: I'm currently rewriting some code and I'm wondering about the
drift of phase-increment.
I.e. I have for example an oscillator or I have a resampling function,
each of which needs to trace a fractional phase.
10 matches
Mail list logo
