Some guy in the MAX/MSP facebook group was able to reverse engineer and
find the formula.
It's [expr out_low + (out_high-out_low) * exp(-1 * (in_high-in_low) *
log(power)) * exp(($f1 - in_low) * log(power))], and it seems to just WORK
PERFECTLY!!
A few more test, and I can get on to cloning it...
> compatibility also means keeping (functionality) bugs.
Yes it does! But, anyway, the point is that I do not really see a "bug"
here...
2015-06-20 15:51 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
> On 06/20/2015 03:55 AM, Joel Matthys wrote:
> > I just don't see the value of trying to make it compatible wi
On 06/20/2015 03:55 AM, Joel Matthys wrote:
> I just don't see the value of trying to make it compatible with broken
> code in Max.
the sole purpose of cyclone is to provide compatibility with max: if you
have a max(<5) patch, it makes it trivial to port it to Pd.
compatibility also means keeping
> To be honest, I don't think the non classic mode is that much
> sensible. It'd make much more sense to me to specify a power
> exponential.
I take this back, because that what it does after all, you specify the
power exponential :)
I still think we need to clone the classic mode behavior, but I
> There's no way mapping 13.3 from 0-127 to -1 to 1
> should result in something so close to -1
well, there wouldn't be a way if it were a linear scaling... but it's a
logarithmic scale, so it'll do what it does.
> Just try a few different exponents and
> you'll see that there's a bug in the Max
Well, I'm trying to point out that it ain't "broken", the object works...
whatever its code is. I'm just trying to figure out the code to clone it.
2015-06-19 22:55 GMT-03:00 Joel Matthys :
> I just don't see the value of trying to make it compatible with broken
> code in Max.
>
> Joel
>
>
> On
I just don't see the value of trying to make it compatible with broken
code in Max.
Joel
On 06/19/2015 08:47 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
yeah, I see all that, but the problem is trying to clone it as it is
in Max for the sake of compatibility.
I wouldn't say that the classic mode is "
yeah, I see all that, but the problem is trying to clone it as it is in Max
for the sake of compatibility.
I wouldn't say that the classic mode is "wrong", it may be not good for the
purpose, but it's an arbitrary mathematical formula, so it is what it is.
The problem is that I'm not being able t
You're using the [scale] formula from @classic_mode in Max7, which
exists for compatibility with IRCAM, but it's clearly wrong. (There's no
way mapping 13.3 from 0-127 to -1 to 1 should result in something so
close to -1. Just try a few different exponents and you'll see that
there's a bug in t
Hi Alexandre,
> it almost is, but in maxlib you just turn the mapping to log on or
off, in max you specify a log parameter.
That is a very handy feature!
> by the way, I'm pretty sure I'm not doing anything wrong, and the
given equation in Max just seems to be wrong
Yep, just double checke
> the object you describe sounds to me identical to [maxlib/scale]
it almost is, but in maxlib you just turn the mapping to log on or off, in
max you specify a log parameter.
I did share a patch in text and attached. Not sure if everyone gets the
attachment so I sent the text file as well, but he
Hi Alexandre,
On 20/06/15 00:39, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote:
Here's my patch with that formula into expr. The output with the parameters
I have should be -0.997347 - as that's the output I get in Max. But
instead, it's giving -0.994694...
Would you care to share your parameters so we c
Howdy, so I'm cloning the scale object from Max, to make an object and
include in the cyclone library. It converts range input (low_in / high_in)
to a range output (low_out / high_out). It has a logarithmic curve for
rescaling according to a fifth argument/inlet. I did copy into expr the
formula de
13 matches
Mail list logo
