Re: [PD] [vcf~] with resonance?

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:46 PM, William Huston wrote: > Yes, thanks for the detailed response, Ed! > > I was hoping for some guidance for a bolt-on method for adding resonance > to vcf~, > but maybe it's not so easy? or the wrong approach? > > My error was thinking

Re: [PD] [vcf~] with resonance?

Q refers to the bandwidth of a resonant filter, but is ultimate effect t depends on what kind of filter we're talking about. In some filters, adjusting the bandwidth also boost the resonant frequency. This is not the case of vcf~, which acts more like a constant gain bandpass filter. It's more

Re: [PD] [vcf~] with resonance?

2018-04-25 15:03 GMT-03:00 William Huston : > Thanks Christof. > > The help file for [svf~] shows a control-rate number box feeding the > cutoff. > But I tested with [sig~] and it works. Thanks. > the documentation (at least the current one) specifies all kinds of data

Re: [PD] [vcf~] with resonance?

ee/moog~]. > > Christof > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. April 2018 um 18:46 Uhr > Von: "William Huston" <williamahus...@gmail.com> > An: "Julian Brooks" <jbee...@gmail.com> > Cc: "pd-list@lists.iem.at" <pd-list@lists.iem.a

Re: [PD] [vcf~] with resonance?

~]. Christof     Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. April 2018 um 18:46 Uhr Von: "William Huston" <williamahus...@gmail.com> An: "Julian Brooks" <jbee...@gmail.com> Cc: "pd-list@lists.iem.at" <pd-list@lists.iem.at> Betreff: Re: [PD] [vcf~] with resonance? Yes, than

Re: [PD] [vcf~] with resonance?

Yes, thanks for the detailed response, Ed! I was hoping for some guidance for a bolt-on method for adding resonance to vcf~, but maybe it's not so easy? or the wrong approach? My error was thinking resonance was implemented with feedback. >From this video, it looks like resonance is caused by a

Re: [PD] [vcf~] with resonance?

Well, regardless of the correct number of inversions, some informative and well linked posts there - cheers for that Ed :) On 24 April 2018 at 20:44, Ed Kelly via Pd-list wrote: > The 4-pole model in the ENS-85 paper does not have inversion at the input, > but the Thomas

Re: [PD] [vcf~] with resonance?

The 4-pole model in the ENS-85 paper does not have inversion at the input, but the Thomas Henry 2-pole design does. So I guess the 4-pole is more similar to vcf~ go figure. Signing off Ed _-_-_-_-_-_-_-^-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ For Lone Shark releases, Pure Data software and published Research, go to

Re: [PD] [vcf~] with resonance?

Ach! NO! inversion does not happen at the input! I guess you can look at the topologies and discover for yourself. I'm having a bad week. x Ed _-_-_-_-_-_-_-^-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ For Lone Shark releases, Pure Data software and published Research, go to http://sharktracks.co.uk  On Tuesday,

Re: [PD] [vcf~] with resonance?

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will) but going back to analog electronics... If you examine the topology of a standard analog filter design, such as the Thomas Henry VCF1 (http://www.birthofasynth.com/Thomas_Henry/pdf/VCF-1/Sheet_0002.pdf) you will see that the signal path from

[PD] [vcf~] with resonance?

What's the best or "correct" way to add resonance to a [vcf~]? - Should the feedback be delayed? - Should the feedback be inverted? - Should the feedback be from the outlet I'm using? - Or should the feedback always come from the BP or HiPass side? Thanks! BH -- William Huston: