Wave Designer 0.3.10 / Customer Discounts / Tone2 Crossgrades Available

[zorniko]

Oh God, what's that with the damn cancer...
Perheaps you alredy know this, but anyway visit: http://www.cancertutor.com/Cancer/Breuss.html
My close acquaintance defeated breast cancer with this method.
But it was REALLY exhausting.
Sigh... btw, my neighbor made it to a day 17, and couldn't stand it anymore.

[whyterabbyt]

Is it possible to tell us what functions the function generators support? Will it include (weighted) random/noise functions? Or 'feedback' (ie use of the current contents of the wavetable buffer in the function for the next one?)

I just thought of a slightly better way of doing this: provide one or two waveform 'buffers' in a manner similar to other tools, and allow the function generator access to them.
So assuming you had two buffers, called A and B, you'd be able to copy back and forwards between the 'working waveform' and the A and B buffer, and maybe even load to A and B, and also use be able to use them in formulae:

cos(x * 2 *pi) * cos (x * 2)
sin (Ax * 2 * pi) * cos (x * 2)
tan (Ax * Bx)

[as an extension of this, if whatever batch operations you wind up with were capable of controlling a variable used in the formula then you could generate related series of morphing/changing/whatever wavecycles quite easily.

Imagine your batch operation allows something like a for..next.. loop ... you have it doing a number of loops (say 64) and in each loop you increment a variable (call it N which is useable in your formula) from a start value (say 0) to an end value (say 1). Im proposing that these loop settings would be controlled from whatever dialogue box allowed you to do batch operations.

Then a basic formula like

(N * Bx) + ((1-N)*Ax)

could build 64 waveforms 'morphing' the waveform from that in the A buffer to that in the B buffer.]

[zorniko]

...a basic formula like
(N * Bx) + ((1-N)*Ax)
could build 64 waveforms 'morphing' the waveform from that in the A buffer to that in the B buffer.

Yes, this is great morph "trick".
With N=0 you'll have the pure A and with N=1 the pure B
Anything in between is a morph.

EDIT: Oh, yes, and you can go beyond 1 or below 0, up/down to... something useable

+1 for a great A-B idea which (if implemented) can open a whole new perspective.

EDIT2: But if the formulas can be ~infinitely long (:party:) and if they will have flexible variables system, strictly A-B doesn't have to be an imperative.
I hope I'm not unclear

[whyterabbyt]

EDIT2: But if the formulas can be ~infinitely long (:party:) and if they will have flexible variables system, strictly A-B doesn't have to be an imperative.
I hope I'm not unclear

Could you explain, I dont really understand what you mean.

[zorniko]

Haha I am unclear...
Ok, basicaly if you get an option to define e.g. N as 0-1, step y, and then write both A and B directly in the formula, press export and voila...

[whyterabbyt]

Haha I am unclear...
Ok, basicaly if you get an option to define e.g. N as 0-1, step y, and then write both A and B directly in the formula, press export and voila...

Sorry, I must be bein a bit thick. Is that different, and if so, how, from what I was suggesting?

[zorniko]

Well, not in the example I wrote, but if you can have a loong formula and defineable (ranged) variables, then you can use not just A and B but whatever you want.
I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be just A and B, etc.

[whyterabbyt]

Well, not in the example I wrote, but if you can have a loong formula and defineable (ranged) variables, then you can use not just A and B but whatever you want.
I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be just A and B, etc.

The A and B I was talking would be the two waveform buffers I proposed (or rather Ax and Bx in the formula being indices into those A and B buffers). Are you talking about having more than two buffers?

[zorniko]

No buffers at all, just a (long enough) formula and ranged variables.

[whyterabbyt]

No buffers at all, just a (long enough) formula and ranged variables.

What do you mean by 'ranged variables' ?

Do you mean more than one variable set by a batch export function? If so, bear in mind that my suggestion of single variable N is actually just a cosmetic convenience. If you have a long formula, over L loops you should be able to derive any range from knowing the number of the loop you're on.

[zorniko]

We're thinking ~the same, but don't understand each other. Haha...
Ok, ranged means from-to. So we can define N or L or anything in some range and step. So, I imagine a formula-bar where I can write for e.g:
"define K (0, 64, step 1); def R (32, 0, 4); -any formula using K & R-; EXPORT"

I hope this is more clear. Don't know how else to explain.

Cheers

[whyterabbyt]

We're thinking ~the same, but don't understand each other. Haha...
Ok, ranged means from-to. So we can define N or L or anything in some range and step. So, I imagine a formula-bar where I can write for e.g:
"define K (0, 64, step 1); def R (32, 0, 4); -any formula using K & R-; EXPORT"

I hope this is more clear. Don't know how else to explain.

Cheers

Okay, I understand now. But bear in mind, Im suggesting things that could, I think, be achieved with minimal architectural changes (three waveform buffers instead of one, a single loop counter, an extra three fixed-meaning variable names) to whatever code is already in place.

With your suggestion, I think you'd be talking about a significant rethink of the expression parser. But I dont see that it would offer anything that my simpler version with one variable couldn't already do.

Given that additional complexity will undoubtedly cost more money to implement, I kinda favour whatever can be done (relatively, of course) simply.

[zorniko]

With your suggestion, I think you'd be talking about a significant rethink of the expression parser.

Yes, you maybe right.
However, we don't know anything about how its going to look like

...I dont see that it would offer anything that my simpler version with one variable couldn't already do.

Reconsider
More variables & waves = more options

But more complication, that's true.
In fact, maybe the things I'm thinking about are more like a small scripts.
That may be the second idea - scripting ability.
Ah, well, whatever, it just has to be useful.

Given that additional complexity will undoubtedly cost more money to implement, I kinda favour whatever can be done (relatively, of course) simply.

I agree.

[whyterabbyt]

...I dont see that it would offer anything that my simpler version with one variable couldn't already do.

Reconsider
More variables & waves = more options

Any variable could still be expressed as a function, though, so you dont need them.
More waves is a different prospect entirely, and, actually, is outside the scope of anything either of us referred to, as far as I can tell. You did say 'no buffers' so are you taking about waves pulled from existing files? If that's the case, then that's yet another layer of complexity again.

I'd suggest that this is primarily being designed as an interactive, visual tool, with batch processing as a potential option. To me, the things you're talking about start to sound more like the kind of thing you'd be better off using a scripting language for, rather than shoehorning it into this tool.

[zorniko]

Any variable could still be expressed as a function, though, so you dont need them.

True, if you are provided with the option to write such functions

More waves is a different prospect entirely, and, actually, is outside the scope of anything either of us referred to, as far as I can tell. You did say 'no buffers' so are you taking about waves pulled from existing files?

I refered to waves written as/in formula.

I'd suggest that this is primarily being designed as an interactive, visual tool, with batch processing as a potential option. To me, the things you're talking about start to sound more like the kind of thing you'd be better off using a scripting language for, rather than shoehorning it into this tool.

That is right, and I told that in a previous post. Things I'm talking about are very similar to small scripts. That can be just a nice addon, but it isn't "a must", of course.
And... I'm not a native english speaker, so the term "shoehorning" is unknown to me. I guess this can mean that I'm forcing something? If so - no. Just thinking loudly, and exchanging some interesting ideas.