Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
>. . . > So as I undertood your picture, I am the father of the EDP denomination. > And I feel that this dificults my participation / contribution in the > others, just like in real religions: If you are strong in one tribe > the members of the others keep distance. > . . . As with real religions, we must concentrate on unity and not division! And celebrate different views as additions. Like in physics, "Is light a wave or a particle?" Embracing both views increases our understanding. Holding one view is limiting. >. . . > shure, the click goes away, but couldnt you hear some bump, like as > if an new such hum tone would start? I had that a lot when editing > sound files on the Mac. > The only way to get rid of it is a slow Xfade. > The savest place to cut is an attack. I started cutting tape: Roll > backwards and forewards until you locate the beginning of a note and > cut there. Shure, the diagonal tape splice also corresponds to a > cross fade... > > So instead of searching for a zero-crossing, you may search for an > attack. Usually the musician starts a loop with a new note :-) > Cutting at the last zero cross before the attack, you probably dont > have to care about the end point, because the click will be > overrolled by the attack, right? > > If there is no attack, we need a Xfade, and it can be a long one. It probably does depends on the audio material. I haven't heard a click or bump when I test with humming, but I haven't tried many other kinds of audio yet. Perhaps we could trade small sound files? That way we could hear/see the different atrifacts. For example, I could send you before and after files. If you're interested, I'd suggest an uncompressed format like AIFF or WAV. BTW: How slow is the Xfade? > >My zero-crossing adjuster alters the loop length, even if by only a > >tiny amount. >>. . . > In the worst case, you have to go back almost a phase of say a 33Hz > note, which is 30ms. If it happens on both ends, its 60... couldnt > you correct backwards on both ends, so you can do it in real time and > the error would subtract instead of adding? > With the attack method, you have to correct more, maybe, but usually > only the entry point. The original loop length can stay untouched, > unless there is exactly another attack at the end, which is quite > likely. But in this case you can move the end point to the attack and > hope that its played more acurately than the musicians foot action, > so you actually improve loop length. Yes, I'm concerned about the low tones. 60 ms gets significant! I like the idea of "correcting" the same direction on both ends so as to minimize the length changes. Seems like the best action is to quantize the recording to zero-crossing points. Right now, my zero-crossing adjuster works on sound already recorded into wavetable memory. > Ask IVL, they must know a lot about this stuff! Ah! The Electrix / IVL folks! Hey Damon! How does the Repeater handle loop splice points? Zero-crossing? Cross-fade? Both? Other? Adjustable? [ I'll cc Damon this message. Hope you don't mind, Damon. I'm really interested in how the Repeater does this. ] Dennis Leas ----------------------------- dennis@mdbs.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Grob" <matthias@grob.org> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 12:11 PM Subject: Re: Xfade vs. zeroX / HW vs SW (was: dream box) > > >>I think both Kyma and MAX/MSP provide solutions. This is cool! > > >>[Sometimes I feel that, if I'm into this "looper religion" thing, > >then Kyma is like my denomination. :) That makes the MAX/MSP folks > >(and Orville users, etc.) like a different denomination; same > >religion, they just use different words to mean about the same > >thing!] > > > >>please let me be member of such denomination! > > > >I always thought you were one of the founders! One of the "fathers of >the > >revolution"!!! Viva la Loop!!!!!! :) > > hmm, I hope it will not turn into revolution, but a peacefull evolution. >:-) > I contributed with the currage to launch the first dedicated loop unit. > But looping has a much longer story. > So as I undertood your picture, I am the father of the EDP denomination. > And I feel that this dificults my participation / contribution in the > others, just like in real religions: If you are strong in one tribe > the members of the others keep distance. > The SW looper specialists may fear that I grab all ideas while in > fact the oposit is happening lately! > > > >Doesnt the audibility depend on the sound material? > >>Roughly: For percussive sound, the zero crossing is great but for >sustained > > >sound, cross fade is necessary, otherwhise you hear a new attack >which can > > >be about as annoying as a click. > > >In a future HW solution such fades will be available and probably > >controllable. > >>The sound material could be analyzed to define characteristic. > > > >Interesting... > >Yes, I think the audibility depends on the sound material, but I > >would say just > >the opposite! I.e., I'd use zeroX for sustained sounds. Here's my > >experience: > >I wrote a zero-crossing adjuster for Kyma recently. To test it, I >created a > >short loop by humming a continuous tone into the mic and punching > >in/out. Sure > >enough, I heard a click at the loop point. After being > >zero-adjusted, the click > >completely disappeared. But perhaps with other sounds, the zeroX would >leave > >artifacts. > > shure, the click goes away, but couldnt you hear some bump, like as > if an new such hum tone would start? I had that a lot when editing > sound files on the Mac. > The only way to get rid of it is a slow Xfade. > The savest place to cut is an attack. I started cutting tape: Roll > backwards and forewards until you locate the beginning of a note and > cut there. Shure, the diagonal tape splice also corresponds to a > cross fade... > > So instead of searching for a zero-crossing, you may search for an > attack. Usually the musician starts a loop with a new note :-) > Cutting at the last zero cross before the attack, you probably dont > have to care about the end point, because the click will be > overrolled by the attack, right? > > If there is no attack, we need a Xfade, and it can be a long one. > > >My zero-crossing adjuster alters the loop length, even if by only a > >tiny amount. > >It advances the start point and retreats the end point until a >zero-crossing > >splice is achieved (with the same signal slope on each side). The nice >thing > >about Xfade is that the loop length can remain EXACTLY the same. In >thinking > >about Alex's original question some more, I think maybe a cross-fade >for the > >sub-loop to eliminate clicks but trim the new material with a >zero-crossing > >adjustment. > > In the worst case, you have to go back almost a phase of say a 33Hz > note, which is 30ms. If it happens on both ends, its 60... couldnt > you correct backwards on both ends, so you can do it in real time and > the error would subtract instead of adding? > With the attack method, you have to correct more, maybe, but usually > only the entry point. The original loop length can stay untouched, > unless there is exactly another attack at the end, which is quite > likely. But in this case you can move the end point to the attack and > hope that its played more acurately than the musicians foot action, > so you actually improve loop length. > > Ask IVL, they must know a lot about this stuff! > > > ---> http://Matthias.Grob.org >