Right...I guess I'm just not sure why you have a problem with that. I mean, we're talking about aliasing here. That's a frequency phenomenon. Why do you want to describe what happens in the frequency domain using the time domain?
...f-domain is so handy because the pc does all the calculations, and there are used approximations, interpolations or leaky integrators as well... And that's already the reason: Calcuations in the time-domain are faster, while harder to "design", most of the time. I already have some things that work pretty well in terms of alias-suppression. But the math behind it is just "1st order" and of course using higher math uses more cpu-power.. (I also got a saw-osc that doesn't produce these wobble-sweep-harmonics while it's f gradually changes. It works with smoothing the jump.. But i won't post it yet, 'cause the "math" are just values from experiments i did with the osc, and yet i don't know completely where these numbers come from... )
That's a frequency phenomenon.
...yeah OR a time-phenomenon... one doesn't exclude the other...
...hmm, the patch... ...I tried it again, and it didn't work as well. But that's not our fault!! (Everything points to a dsp-bug i mentioned in an other post.. or it's a bug with the [vline~] ..if i remember correctly that object is a little buggy anyways..)
Soooo I did a second one, that can hande the "crazy situation" and posted it here.
Please have a second try. ...Actually i just didn't change the calculations, but rearranged the dsp-order...
From time to time if i load the patch it doesn't work from the start! If that happens to you click the [-0.5( !! ...but it would be best not to happen at all...
--> It seems the ramp sometimes doesn't start at "0" (..0, 0.2, 0.4...) but at the next value "0.2". So we have to use [0.5( or [-0.5(...
Well, if everything works as it should, one can see that there is NO DC! But it slowly comes back due to numerical errors. That's why we have to sync, or rather "restart" the oscs from time to time.
Simply making a waveform perfectly symmetrical doesn't mean there is no DC offset
I don't think so! Mathematically it does just mean that.
E.g. if I invert a waveforms amplitude and play it time-reversed, and the waveform still looks the same, there can't be any DC-offset. If there was, it wouldn't look the same anymore...!!!
No, this is because of the "reverse saw" spectrum. The loudest frequencies that alias are just above Nyquist
...but that's f-domain again. Lets imagine we could hear far beyond the samplingrate (say 44100). Now as we sweep up a sine, it starts as a sine and at 22050Hz ends up as a square! And if ther was no "smear", that is a s&h-like behavior in time, the output of the sweeped osc at 22050Hz would rather be a tri-shape since we just have points instead of "lines" in time (and we assume "physics to be steady outside the pc", so we kind of interpolate between those points).
...this just as one reason for aliasing seen in time-domain!
An example where timedomain is really "better": Imagine we have to build an ANALOG "aliasing-device". It simulates aliasing of a given waveform/spectrum:
-As a freq.-domain approach we would take some sine-oscs and tune each according to the foldover-theorems etc. (and the waveform itself) ...as well as setting each amlitude of course.
So we create a "additive-aliasing-synth" that beside the harmonics has to calculate even the disharmonics... That's faaar too much...
-As a time-domain approach we would just use... well..a pc.. ...rather a sample'n'hold-unit ((..like in d'n'b, -hihi . )), since it's part of any "adc-dac".
Well if that wasn't easier, then idk...!!!