SocaLabs Maths is funny

[RobC]

Very interesting stereo effect possibility from mono signal!

Left: l>=0 ? l : 0

Right: l<=0 ? l : 0

Positive waveforms go to the left, negative ones to the right.

EDIT:

It was in front of my eyes all the time, yet it's such a powerful little possibility when it comes to positive and negative waveforms. Even those on their own can be processed. Of course, there's some trickiness, so gotta be careful, but yeah, this doubled possibilities once more.

I’ve been doing the same thing in Complex by modulating the pan at audio rates. This essentially puts the positive and negative parts of the waveform in opposite speakers.
See my patch “Humongous” for Complex-1 in the “Melodic” folder, specifically Output Mixer channel 3.

Taking it further, by modulating the depth of the effect with an LFO you can get a nice swirly stereo effect. There’s also a little movement in the stereo field related to pitch, which means as you play in different registers the stereo effect slightly shifts - but maybe this is related specifically to how Complex-1 oversamples…

Also, try it with noise - even more interesting effect!

The “distortion” effect is very interesting, in that it disappears when you collapse the stereo signal to mono. I found it a great way to get a wider stereo image from a synth that wasn’t natively “stereo” (unless you count the FX section).


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Oh, so they do already have audio rate modulation possibilities in Reason.
Yes, I tested it with noise, especially checking different colors. Plus it's also nice on a filtered sound which has less high frequency content. This adds some back in it's unique way.

It can be odd though, when the effect is there in stereo, but not in mono, so it may or may not be desired to create a balance between the two so it's present in both.

[RobC]

Hmm, maybe it's possible in Reaktor?

Pretty much anything is possible in Reaktor, with few exceptions.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Which one would be better to use for developing in the end? Rack Extension or Reaktor?

[ScuzzyEye]

[Which one would be better to use for developing in the end? Rack Extension or Reaktor?

Reaktor is great for prototyping. But for distribution to others, an RE or VST would be better, as it is entirely self-contained.

[RobC]

[Which one would be better to use for developing in the end? Rack Extension or Reaktor?

Reaktor is great for prototyping. But for distribution to others, an RE or VST would be better, as it is entirely self-contained.

I'm all for Reason, so if the RE format doesn't really have limitations (except for the need for hiring programmers if I get stuck), then I'd rather go for that instead of learning Reaktor.

[selig]

Reaktor is great for prototyping. But for distribution to others, an RE or VST would be better, as it is entirely self-contained.

I'm all for Reason, so if the RE format doesn't really have limitations (except for the need for hiring programmers if I get stuck), then I'd rather go for that instead of learning Reaktor.

The RE platform is a poor place to prototype and explore ideas. Better for building to a specification IMO, so you'll have to find a way to prototype unless you're building simple modules. For example, in Reaktor (or Max or similar) you make a change and you hear it. When building an RE you'll need to make a change, build it, launch the test app, load it, and then try it. If you change the front panel you'll have to add a render step to the process, so it's far from "immediate" when testing changes or additions (assuming you "nail" the changes the first time - if not, it can be a tedious loop!).

Not sure how you're thinking of distributing, or to whom, but there IS a free Reaktor Player that folks would use to run your creations (I've not tried it myself so don't know if there are limitations or other "gotchas").
https://www.native-instruments.com/en/p ... -6-player/

[RobC]

I'm all for Reason, so if the RE format doesn't really have limitations (except for the need for hiring programmers if I get stuck), then I'd rather go for that instead of learning Reaktor.

The RE platform is a poor place to prototype and explore ideas. Better for building to a specification IMO, so you'll have to find a way to prototype unless you're building simple modules. For example, in Reaktor (or Max or similar) you make a change and you hear it. When building an RE you'll need to make a change, build it, launch the test app, load it, and then try it. If you change the front panel you'll have to add a render step to the process, so it's far from "immediate" when testing changes or additions (assuming you "nail" the changes the first time - if not, it can be a tedious loop!).

Not sure how you're thinking of distributing, or to whom, but there IS a free Reaktor Player that folks would use to run your creations (I've not tried it myself so don't know if there are limitations or other "gotchas").
https://www.native-instruments.com/en/p ... -6-player/

I'd only try to create projects that are already completely worked out. In the past, I simply wrote and planned a tool on paper (keeping what I can do inside Reason in mind), then could easily recreate it step by step. So the project-organizing part and plan (what I probably could simply hand out to a programmer) would already be finished.

I can understand the use for Reaktor, though when something isn't 100% planned out ~ and when Reason starts reaching its limits.

Sounds like it's just like with programming ~ which is pretty appealing to me. Tons of times, I just loaded up Reason, didn't listen to anything, but simply built tools (and got frustrated when I reached a limit).
The additional "blindness" when developing, makes things only more exciting (and challenging, of course). Plus it's something that keeps my hyperactive mind on a leash, so I won't be like "let's test it again and again, cause it's at my fingertips".

Earlier, I was interested in becoming an RE developer ~ putting a tool inside the rack itself sounds dreamy. So, Reason is definitely my main target if possible. The RE market itself is "just" a plus.

[selig]

I'd only try to create projects that are already completely worked out. In the past, I simply wrote and planned a tool on paper (keeping what I can do inside Reason in mind), then could easily recreate it step by step. So the project-organizing part and plan (what I probably could simply hand out to a programmer) would already be finished.

I can understand the use for Reaktor, though when something isn't 100% planned out ~ and when Reason starts reaching its limits.

Sounds like it's just like with programming ~ which is pretty appealing to me. Tons of times, I just loaded up Reason, didn't listen to anything, but simply built tools (and got frustrated when I reached a limit).
The additional "blindness" when developing, makes things only more exciting (and challenging, of course). Plus it's something that keeps my hyperactive mind on a leash, so I won't be like "let's test it again and again, cause it's at my fingertips".

Earlier, I was interested in becoming an RE developer ~ putting a tool inside the rack itself sounds dreamy. So, Reason is definitely my main target if possible. The RE market itself is "just" a plus.

I don't know how you work, but I tend to try to create unique things. Like with ColoringEQ, there was no way I could just build it an know that it would be useful. First step was building a one band and very clunky version with a Combinator so I could test the concept in a mix context. Testing in context is very important to my work, as my products must fulfill my "three U" guideline: Unique, Useful, and Understandable". The only way to know if I've achieved that or not is by actually using the device/concept in context.

So the prototyping process is not only for the underlying technology, in this case a saturating EQ. But it's also to test the parameter ranges and number of controls (do these controls/ranges allow quick and predictable results?), and to test layout (which controls need to be next to each other for the smoothest workflows), and basic size (understandings Fitts Law, creating visual context and logical arrangements, which all adds to "understandably"), and much more.

Once I can use the prototype on a number of projects without making changes, then I know I'm ready to begin the building process.

Not sure if any of this applies to your projects, just sharing in case it does!

[RobC]

I'd only try to create projects that are already completely worked out. In the past, I simply wrote and planned a tool on paper (keeping what I can do inside Reason in mind), then could easily recreate it step by step. So the project-organizing part and plan (what I probably could simply hand out to a programmer) would already be finished.

I can understand the use for Reaktor, though when something isn't 100% planned out ~ and when Reason starts reaching its limits.

Sounds like it's just like with programming ~ which is pretty appealing to me. Tons of times, I just loaded up Reason, didn't listen to anything, but simply built tools (and got frustrated when I reached a limit).
The additional "blindness" when developing, makes things only more exciting (and challenging, of course). Plus it's something that keeps my hyperactive mind on a leash, so I won't be like "let's test it again and again, cause it's at my fingertips".

Earlier, I was interested in becoming an RE developer ~ putting a tool inside the rack itself sounds dreamy. So, Reason is definitely my main target if possible. The RE market itself is "just" a plus.

I don't know how you work, but I tend to try to create unique things. Like with ColoringEQ, there was no way I could just build it an know that it would be useful. First step was building a one band and very clunky version with a Combinator so I could test the concept in a mix context. Testing in context is very important to my work, as my products must fulfill my "three U" guideline: Unique, Useful, and Understandable". The only way to know if I've achieved that or not is by actually using the device/concept in context.

So the prototyping process is not only for the underlying technology, in this case a saturating EQ. But it's also to test the parameter ranges and number of controls (do these controls/ranges allow quick and predictable results?), and to test layout (which controls need to be next to each other for the smoothest workflows), and basic size (understandings Fitts Law, creating visual context and logical arrangements, which all adds to "understandably"), and much more.

Once I can use the prototype on a number of projects without making changes, then I know I'm ready to begin the building process.

Not sure if any of this applies to your projects, just sharing in case it does!

I think, in the past, what was mostly missing from me, was the "Understandable" part. xD Or at least lack of simplicity. My current thinking is, that if I would share a tool, it should be dumb simple (to use, and to visually see through), very straight forward, and should do only what it was meant for - nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not ignoring the prototyping part at all. If anything, before I'd create something, I would have thought about it and recreated it for years, even. - And of course looking for the given tool, and wondering why the hell it's not created yet. I'd like some things badly, and since no-one is creating them, there's one more reason for me to get to work.

So I guess it's more or less the same for me too, only I maybe want to try to take the simplifying a bit further for the tools themselves.
There was that logical video game, called Portal. There was some developer commentary after finishing the game, and one mentioned, that when they created puzzles to solve, they considered when game testers got frustrated. After, they changed the challenges, so they remained still challenging, but more fun at the same time. ~ That's where this "dumb simple" idea came from - but that's just for usage/work flow/understanding - 'under the hood' the tool should still be powerful.

[RobC]

I'm all for Reason, so if the RE format doesn't really have limitations (except for the need for hiring programmers if I get stuck), then I'd rather go for that instead of learning Reaktor.

The RE platform is a poor place to prototype and explore ideas. Better for building to a specification IMO, so you'll have to find a way to prototype unless you're building simple modules. For example, in Reaktor (or Max or similar) you make a change and you hear it. When building an RE you'll need to make a change, build it, launch the test app, load it, and then try it. If you change the front panel you'll have to add a render step to the process, so it's far from "immediate" when testing changes or additions (assuming you "nail" the changes the first time - if not, it can be a tedious loop!).

Not sure how you're thinking of distributing, or to whom, but there IS a free Reaktor Player that folks would use to run your creations (I've not tried it myself so don't know if there are limitations or other "gotchas").
https://www.native-instruments.com/en/p ... -6-player/

With all said, unless there's anything better in the category than Reaktor (that's a question, sort of), then I will dig into it for a more complete/easier planning.

[Re8et]

I always was looking for some easy way of doing some simple math stuff. Primary for CV, but also for audio. And i found a quite good solution for FREE. The Maths VST plugin from SocalLabs.

https://socalabs.com/developer-tools/maths/

I'm not entirelysure why I got me into this, it looks like C++ straight into the rack... first attempt to try to get an AND logical operation failed with lots of noise, I disconnected the output for good, only visual from now on o0"''

link to TRUTH topic viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7510977
and then https://www.tutorialspoint.com/cprogram ... rators.htm

I still don't get it how do it translates on the binary (left and right or inputs 1 and 2) for the logical operations..
Should the formula be the same on both channels?? & how to stay monophonic??

I would write the formula on slot 1, feed the inputs l,r and then take just out 1??

Of course, Audio

[Loque]

I always was looking for some easy way of doing some simple math stuff. Primary for CV, but also for audio. And i found a quite good solution for FREE. The Maths VST plugin from SocalLabs.

https://socalabs.com/developer-tools/maths/

I'm not entirelysure why I got me into this, it looks like C++ straight into the rack... first attempt to try to get an AND logical operation failed with lots of noise, I disconnected the output for good, only visual from now on o0"''

link to TRUTH topic viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7510977
and then https://www.tutorialspoint.com/cprogram ... rators.htm

I still don't get it how do it translates on the binary (left and right or inputs 1 and 2) for the logical operations..
Should the formula be the same on both channels?? & how to stay monophonic??

I would write the formula on slot 1, feed the inputs l,r and then take just out 1??

Of course, Audio

What do you want to do?

You always generate left and right output and you can send the same formula to both.

[Re8et]

I'm not entirely sure of what I want to do by now, sure it's fun when you know what you must be doing...!

SQUAREWAVE.JPG (89.88 KiB) Viewed 685 times

[Loque]

...

I already did a square for you Might not be via FFT summing, but it works quite ok. No oversampling, antialiasing and whatso, just a ruff digital square.
viewtopic.php?p=399298#p399298

[RobC]

Very interesting stereo effect possibility from mono signal!

Left: l>=0 ? l : 0

Right: l<=0 ? l : 0

Positive waveforms go to the left, negative ones to the right.

EDIT:

It was in front of my eyes all the time, yet it's such a powerful little possibility when it comes to positive and negative waveforms. Even those on their own can be processed. Of course, there's some trickiness, so gotta be careful, but yeah, this doubled possibilities once more.

I’ve been doing the same thing in Complex by modulating the pan at audio rates. This essentially puts the positive and negative parts of the waveform in opposite speakers.
See my patch “Humongous” for Complex-1 in the “Melodic” folder, specifically Output Mixer channel 3.

Taking it further, by modulating the depth of the effect with an LFO you can get a nice swirly stereo effect. There’s also a little movement in the stereo field related to pitch, which means as you play in different registers the stereo effect slightly shifts - but maybe this is related specifically to how Complex-1 oversamples…

Also, try it with noise - even more interesting effect!

The “distortion” effect is very interesting, in that it disappears when you collapse the stereo signal to mono. I found it a great way to get a wider stereo image from a synth that wasn’t natively “stereo” (unless you count the FX section).


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

I got a thought regarding this: what if we apply this stereo effect on frequencies below 80 Hz or so? Sure it would rather work with headphones, but it would still be mono compatible. With speakers, we feel the bass, but not on headphones; and that distortion effect which is sort of an illusion, could sort of enhance the bass to give it a little extra something, if we already miss that 'feel' from speakers. Thus it would only be there where maybe needed.