MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

New modes for the E352 Cloud Terrarium
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Eurorack Modules Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 22, 23, 24  Next [all]
Author New modes for the E352 Cloud Terrarium
MATSmile
Hey Paul,
On E370 2-OP FM is fixed sine or you can assign any waveform to it?
Dogma
MATSmile wrote:
Hey Paul,
On E370 2-OP FM is fixed sine or you can assign any waveform to it?


Why do you keep referencing the e370 in all the e352 threads???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????  ??
listentoaheartbeat
listentoaheartbeat wrote:
Morphing modulator, sine carrier would be cool, with the second output carrying the modulator like on the e330. Or is it the other way round?


Bumping this out of interest. thumbs up
paults
Quote:
On E370 2-OP FM is fixed sine or you can assign any waveform to it?


Yes, for both E352 and E370, you can assign a sine or a fixed wave from the wavetables. And THEN, you can morph them. There is another thread here where I demo this.
MATSmile
paults wrote:
Quote:
On E370 2-OP FM is fixed sine or you can assign any waveform to it?


Yes, for both E352 and E370, you can assign a sine or a fixed wave from the wavetables. And THEN, you can morph them. There is another thread here where I demo this.

Thanks thumbs up
paults
The assignment is by "dialing in" the wave using Z Morph knob/CV.

In the Cloud Mode, you can use the menu system to pick it directly from the loaded wavetables.

Perhaps in a future SW rev, this 'menu pick' can be for all 3 modes, not just the 1.
MATSmile
I have an idea for noise algo. What about implementing simple decay envelope triggered by Sync input with adjustable time in SW.
Brian Odey 1
paults wrote:
Well, I'm glad SOMEBODY is lol

Perhaps the person in question has never managed a project of this magnitude: 30,000 lines of C code, multiple, parallel HW developments and responding to beta testers who find things we never saw and suggest new ways of doing things that require extensive re-writes of device drivers so that we can stay within the 96KHz sample rate.



This is not a little VCA or mixer built from random Google schematics Dead Banana


Think about what you are saying here. 96kHz (not KHz) shows that you are trying to impress rather than actually understanding audio. Most adult people can't hear above 15kHz in a track flanked by HH's, Cymbals and Snares, so 30 kHz sample rate is fine, and 44kHz is as far as you need to go. With a given composition, can you actually hear the difference between 44 kHz and 96kHz from any one VCO? Well can you? So go with 10,000 lines of code and fewer re-writes.
paults
This is Mike Peake, isn't it?

And you are 100% right, I really don't understand audio. The 2 EE degrees, the 10 patents, the 39 years of design.....all a fraud. Thanks for setting the record straight. I feel so much better now.
emeb
Brian Odey 1 wrote:
Most adult people can't hear above 15kHz in a track flanked by HH's, Cymbals and Snares, so 30 kHz sample rate is fine, and 44kHz is as far as you need to go. With a given composition, can you actually hear the difference between 44 kHz and 96kHz from any one VCO? Well can you?


All snark aside, there are good reasons why we choose to run our oscillators at 96kHz vs lower rates. The main one is that it allows simpler synthesis techniques to be used while minimizing aliasing, but there are also issues of responsiveness to modulation that improve with higher sample rates.

You're right in that classical sampling theory requires only that you sample at 2x the bandwidth of the signal, but there's more going on here than Nyquist dreamt of.
gonkulator
paults wrote:
This is Mike Peake, isn't it?


hihi
Pighood
Sometimes I miss Walters9515 or whatever his name was.
Bob Borries
I expect a very low S/N ratio on your digital noise, please.
emeb
Bob Borries wrote:
I expect a very low S/N ratio on your digital noise, please.


But the noise is the signal! AAAAAaaaahhhhhhhh.....
2disbetter
emeb wrote:
Brian Odey 1 wrote:
Most adult people can't hear above 15kHz in a track flanked by HH's, Cymbals and Snares, so 30 kHz sample rate is fine, and 44kHz is as far as you need to go. With a given composition, can you actually hear the difference between 44 kHz and 96kHz from any one VCO? Well can you?


All snark aside, there are good reasons why we choose to run our oscillators at 96kHz vs lower rates. The main one is that it allows simpler synthesis techniques to be used while minimizing aliasing, but there are also issues of responsiveness to modulation that improve with higher sample rates.

You're right in that classical sampling theory requires only that you sample at 2x the bandwidth of the signal, but there's more going on here than Nyquist dreamt of.


This! More is better!

2d
Brian Odey 1
paults wrote:
This is Mike Peake, isn't it?

And you are 100% right, I really don't understand audio. The 2 EE degrees, the 10 patents, the 39 years of design.....all a fraud. Thanks for setting the record straight. I feel so much better now.


Categorically not Mike! I have trawled through all your patents, and whilst they are sort of granted or maintained, they are not entirely relevant; only one really relates to analog audio work. Even that is not that groundbreaking, and quite old. Coin operated machines? I 'spose they make a sound.
Dogma
Brian Odey 1 wrote:
paults wrote:
This is Mike Peake, isn't it?

And you are 100% right, I really don't understand audio. The 2 EE degrees, the 10 patents, the 39 years of design.....all a fraud. Thanks for setting the record straight. I feel so much better now.


Categorically not Mike! I have trawled through all your patents, and whilst they are sort of granted or maintained, they are not entirely relevant; only one really relates to analog audio work. Even that is not that groundbreaking, and quite old. Coin operated machines? I 'spose they make a sound.


Hey Brian! Its pretty obvious there is some other motive to your trolliing so have with it!

Or go make some music or something instead of trawling through someones old patents help help help
Dragonaut
I'd sure like a not-that-groundbreaking patent. As well as my own personal internet stalker.
slow_riot
Brian Odey 1 wrote:

Think about what you are saying here. 96kHz (not KHz) shows that you are trying to impress rather than actually understanding audio. Most adult people can't hear above 15kHz in a track flanked by HH's, Cymbals and Snares, so 30 kHz sample rate is fine, and 44kHz is as far as you need to go. With a given composition, can you actually hear the difference between 44 kHz and 96kHz from any one VCO? Well can you? So go with 10,000 lines of code and fewer re-writes.


For one thing, Nyquist is only related to crude detection of simple tones, not signal fidelity, 30Khz sample rate represents a 15Khz sine wave using a single square wave. In engineering terms that is called 100% harmonic distortion.

Aliasing is also a huge concern in digital audio processing, and implicitly related to sample rate. There is very rarely any reason to run at a lower resolution assuming the system can handle it. (One issue with high resolution processing in an audio system is the high current draw. Older criticisms of high sample rates claimed that clock jitter became unmanageable at 192Khz but those claims are now debunked I think).
Dogma
slow_riot wrote:
Brian Odey 1 wrote:

Think about what you are saying here. 96kHz (not KHz) shows that you are trying to impress rather than actually understanding audio. Most adult people can't hear above 15kHz in a track flanked by HH's, Cymbals and Snares, so 30 kHz sample rate is fine, and 44kHz is as far as you need to go. With a given composition, can you actually hear the difference between 44 kHz and 96kHz from any one VCO? Well can you? So go with 10,000 lines of code and fewer re-writes.


For one thing, Nyquist is only related to crude detection of simple tones, not signal fidelity, 30Khz sample rate represents a 15Khz sine wave using a single square wave. In engineering terms that is called 100% harmonic distortion.

Aliasing is also a huge concern in digital audio processing, and implicitly related to sample rate. There is very rarely any reason to run at a lower resolution assuming the system can handle it. (One issue with high resolution processing in an audio system is the high current draw. Older criticisms of high sample rates claimed that clock jitter became unmanageable at 192Khz but those claims are now debunked I think).


its ssoooo obvious he knows next to nothing about digital processing.....
akrylik
slow_riot wrote:
Brian Odey 1 wrote:

Think about what you are saying here. 96kHz (not KHz) shows that you are trying to impress rather than actually understanding audio. Most adult people can't hear above 15kHz in a track flanked by HH's, Cymbals and Snares, so 30 kHz sample rate is fine, and 44kHz is as far as you need to go. With a given composition, can you actually hear the difference between 44 kHz and 96kHz from any one VCO? Well can you? So go with 10,000 lines of code and fewer re-writes.


For one thing, Nyquist is only related to crude detection of simple tones, not signal fidelity, 30Khz sample rate represents a 15Khz sine wave using a single square wave. In engineering terms that is called 100% harmonic distortion.

Aliasing is also a huge concern in digital audio processing, and implicitly related to sample rate. There is very rarely any reason to run at a lower resolution assuming the system can handle it. (One issue with high resolution processing in an audio system is the high current draw. Older criticisms of high sample rates claimed that clock jitter became unmanageable at 192Khz but those claims are now debunked I think).


Although the "spirit" of your post is correct the details are incorrect. A 30kHz sampling rate IS able to represent a 15kHz sine wave perfectly . It's the 15kHz square wave (which has lots of upper harmonics) or any other waveform for that matter that cannot be represented with a 30kHz sampling rate.
Brian Odey 1
akrylik wrote:
slow_riot wrote:
Brian Odey 1 wrote:

Think about what you are saying here. 96kHz (not KHz) shows that you are trying to impress rather than actually understanding audio. Most adult people can't hear above 15kHz in a track flanked by HH's, Cymbals and Snares, so 30 kHz sample rate is fine, and 44kHz is as far as you need to go. With a given composition, can you actually hear the difference between 44 kHz and 96kHz from any one VCO? Well can you? So go with 10,000 lines of code and fewer re-writes.


For one thing, Nyquist is only related to crude detection of simple tones, not signal fidelity, 30Khz sample rate represents a 15Khz sine wave using a single square wave. In engineering terms that is called 100% harmonic distortion.

Aliasing is also a huge concern in digital audio processing, and implicitly related to sample rate. There is very rarely any reason to run at a lower resolution assuming the system can handle it. (One issue with high resolution processing in an audio system is the high current draw. Older criticisms of high sample rates claimed that clock jitter became unmanageable at 192Khz but those claims are now debunked I think).


Although the "spirit" of your post is correct the details are incorrect. A 30kHz sampling rate IS able to represent a 15kHz sine wave perfectly . It's the 15kHz square wave (which has lots of upper harmonics) or any other waveform for that matter that cannot be represented with a 30kHz sampling rate.


Quite right akrylik, but like I mentioned, if you can't hear, clearly, above 15kHz, then harmonics can't be detected either - so it becomes pointless and expensive to exceed. Going for 44kHz for a sound source among other sounds, is as high as you need to go. 96 kHz sampling is unnecessary and just a figure for sales brochures. Agreed, there may be those that can tell the difference between 44 and 96 kHz for the final master mix, but ask those same people to pin point a 44 kHz sound from a 96 kHz sound, and they would not be able to do it repetitively.
akrylik
Brian Odey 1 wrote:
akrylik wrote:
slow_riot wrote:
Brian Odey 1 wrote:

Think about what you are saying here. 96kHz (not KHz) shows that you are trying to impress rather than actually understanding audio. Most adult people can't hear above 15kHz in a track flanked by HH's, Cymbals and Snares, so 30 kHz sample rate is fine, and 44kHz is as far as you need to go. With a given composition, can you actually hear the difference between 44 kHz and 96kHz from any one VCO? Well can you? So go with 10,000 lines of code and fewer re-writes.


For one thing, Nyquist is only related to crude detection of simple tones, not signal fidelity, 30Khz sample rate represents a 15Khz sine wave using a single square wave. In engineering terms that is called 100% harmonic distortion.

Aliasing is also a huge concern in digital audio processing, and implicitly related to sample rate. There is very rarely any reason to run at a lower resolution assuming the system can handle it. (One issue with high resolution processing in an audio system is the high current draw. Older criticisms of high sample rates claimed that clock jitter became unmanageable at 192Khz but those claims are now debunked I think).


Although the "spirit" of your post is correct the details are incorrect. A 30kHz sampling rate IS able to represent a 15kHz sine wave perfectly . It's the 15kHz square wave (which has lots of upper harmonics) or any other waveform for that matter that cannot be represented with a 30kHz sampling rate.


Quite right akrylik, but like I mentioned, if you can't hear, clearly, above 15kHz, then harmonics can't be detected either - so it becomes pointless and expensive to exceed. Going for 44kHz for a sound source among other sounds, is as high as you need to go. 96 kHz sampling is unnecessary and just a figure for sales brochures. Agreed, there may be those that can tell the difference between 44 and 96 kHz for the final master mix, but ask those same people to pin point a 44 kHz sound from a 96 kHz sound, and they would not be able to do it repetitively.


It is not pointless unfortunately. Those higher harmonics of a 15kHz square wave (or any non-sine) will alias down into the lower frequencies and you will hear them very well. You are confusing the requirements of the encoding of a sound with the requirements of the synthesis of a sound.
Vortico
Supersonic sample rates are nice when driving other oscillators with via FM at audio rates (especially if your modulator is not a sine wave), because waveshaping at high frequencies changes the medium-frequency harmonics of lower frequency waveforms. Many nonlinear analog processors like tube distortion can also push the effects of supersonics into the audible range, which is the reason distortion pedal emulations suck. It's not that you hear the supersonics directly, but you can treat the digital modules more like actual analog circuits when pulling the above tricks.

The real reason though is that the DSP programmer doesn't need to worry about generating a perfect bandlimited signal, which requires lots of CPU, but can instead leave it up to an analog filter with shallower slope on the DAC output.
2disbetter
Brian Odey 1 wrote:

Quite right akrylik, but like I mentioned, if you can't hear, clearly, above 15kHz, then harmonics can't be detected either - so it becomes pointless and expensive to exceed. Going for 44kHz for a sound source among other sounds, is as high as you need to go. 96 kHz sampling is unnecessary and just a figure for sales brochures. Agreed, there may be those that can tell the difference between 44 and 96 kHz for the final master mix, but ask those same people to pin point a 44 kHz sound from a 96 kHz sound, and they would not be able to do it repetitively.


Just incase you missed this:

emeb wrote:

All snark aside, there are good reasons why we choose to run our oscillators at 96kHz vs lower rates. The main one is that it allows simpler synthesis techniques to be used while minimizing aliasing, but there are also issues of responsiveness to modulation that improve with higher sample rates.


2d
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Eurorack Modules Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 22, 23, 24  Next [all]
Page 2 of 24
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group