helium wrote:If you would have some knowledge in how to numerically integrate ordinary differential equations you could choose the method to use and make different trade-offs. If somebody posts code of one particular way to integrate them you no longer have any freedom. The advantage then is of course that somebody else did the thinking for you and you just have to copy and paste the solution.
Basically I just want to hear and analyze the difference, to see what all the "0-delay" (sorry!) evangelists are talking about, if anything.
As things are, I seem to have some discrepancies in my filter tuning which I mostly compensate for with some ugly fudge. I'm wondering if this isn't a shift in the resonant frequency that's a result of the one (sub)sample delays in the poles and/or the resonance feedback.
I don't need to understand it as long as it works and is CPU efficient enough. I'd certainly like
to, and for the first few versions I understood every line of Poly-Ana. But at this point I've incorporated a few lines of code that are effectively opaque to me, contributed from friends and the KVR community. Fast pitch to float calculations and sine generators, for example.
A 0-delay-whatever would be accepted too, if I found it helped. And then when the people who've been convinced that no product that doesn't have it is worth anything, I can say it has it. Pure marketing, it's not like anybody's been complaining about the sound of Poly's filters. (That's the whole reason I built the synth! People liked the Naive/SCAMP filter so much.) Though again, if it helps my tuning discrepancy then that'd be great.