itoa wrote:JCJR wrote:

For instance, if running a 64 sine, 64 cosine harmonic oscillator bank-- Ideally after a few minutes or preferably even indefinitely, all the higher harmonic sin oscillators would cross zero at the same time that the harmonic 1 sin oscillator crosses zero, and all the higher cos oscillators would cross zero at the same time that the harmonic 1 cos oscillator crosses zero.

None of computed oscillators meet these criteria. But isn't the phase drift desired in most cases? Most of natural sounds are slightly inharmonic.

If you want to produce a perfect additive digital buzz, ifft is better.

Thanks itoa. Its just been something want to experiment with one day, if motivation and available time ever coincide. Dunno if an oscillator bank would perform as I imagine, and there seems no better way to find out except write code and discover how bad it sucks.

Ifft is mind numbing in the manipulations to make it work for stretching and pitching. At least it does a number on what is left of my mind. Anyway, I have access to an elastique license, and elastique is vastly superior to any stretching/pitching I ever managed to write. It works fabulous for "reasonable" amounts of stretching/pitching. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Am just curious if a free-running phase locked oscillator bank would sound "smoother" than overlapped manipulated ifft for extreme stretching and pitching. For instance analysis from overlapped conventional fft frames, to establish regular spaced control points, time envelopes for all the sin and cos. Then run the oscillator bank controlled by those smoothed amplitude envelopes. Maybe it would suck or not work at all, or then again, maybe running the osc bank for instance an octave lower than the analysis frequencies, might be cajoled into making a very smooth, non granular sub octave transpose.