oleg-nesterov

I tried to reply via email, but it doesn't seem to work. Let me copy-and-paste my emails here. On 10/13, David Braun wrote: > > @oleg-nesterov Hi, thanks for letting...

On 10/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > If I read this code and the new mixLinearClamp() correctly you > can just use > > morph(f,q,b) = _ > and this...

I still can't understand why do you want to insert morph() into the "svf" environment, to me this makes no sense. You can just add the new svf_morph() function which...

> The phase alignment makes the resulting mix better because you'd have > a consistent peak throughout the whole mixing coefficient, I guess you mean the same peak at CF....

Speaking of svf... Sorry for being offtopic, but what do you think about this trivial change? --- a/filters.lib +++ b/filters.lib @@ -2655,6 +2655,7 @@ declare svf copyright "Copyright (C) 2020...

> The `-fm` option is a way to possibly plug faster version of math functions: Yes I know. But this affects all users of tan(). While this trivial change a)...

> > But why is it so important if you use morph() as audio effect? > > I wouldn't say that constant peak is a vital feature to have. My...

> It does seem to optimise; the following: > > process = _

Let me remind what fi.svf is. It is the collection of the standard 2nd order filters implemented via TPT/ZDF analog modelling. For example, IIRC vi.svf.bp(f,q) is "equivalent" to fi.resonbp(f,q,1) in...

Sorry for noise, I'd like to add to my previous comment... Of course, svf has another advantage. If you use, say, svf.lp then you have svf.bp/hp/more almost for free, the...