
filipe
Hi
I am finishing up my comparative EQ with visual feedback (FFT analysis) and I was able to make my FFT "screens" (arrays) logarithmic. The problem is that my EQ is based on the I03 patch in the audio examples folder, which is linear. I assume I have to introduce some kind of anti log feature in the patch in order to make the Gain array match up with the FFT arrays. Any ideas of how to do this?
Thank you very much!
Cheers,
Filipe
Prototype8.0.pd 
filipe
Hi
I am finishing up my comparative EQ with visual feedback (FFT analysis) and I was able to make my FFT "screens" (arrays) logarithmic. The problem is that my EQ is based on the I03 patch in the audio examples folder, which is linear. I assume I have to introduce some kind of anti log feature in the patch in order to make the Gain array match up with the FFT arrays. Any ideas of how to do this?
Thank you very much!
Cheers,
Filipe
Prototype8.0.pd 
filipe
Hi everyone
I was wondering if anyone had what is called the Box of Tricks or any existing group of patches for better looking GUIs. It'd be really good to get hold of those, in order to finish the application I a currently working on.
Thank you very much in advance.
Cheers,
Filipe 
filipe
Hi!
I am trying to build an FFT analyser so I can use it as visual feedback for an equaliser.
In order for this FFT graph to continuously average the amplitude values of each frequency, I wanted to be able to average this values as more data gets drawn in the graph.
The idea is to use a tabwrite of a certain block size, and then have several tabreads, with the block size of the initial one, divided by the number of tabreads, and then avergae the values outputted by the tabreads.
My biggest problem at the moment is to make the various tabreads read data from one value n to N/x; N being the block size, x the number of tabreads and n the value at which the previous tabread stops reading.
I have tried using [count] but it is very slow, since it depends on the metro, and I don't seem to make it work with [until] either...
Any suggestions?Thanks for your time!
Filipe 
filipe
Hi
I have been tweaking Katjav's patch, in order to have a bit more definition on the lower frequencies. I added a highpass filter (to get rid of DC) and changed the fft analysis for a whole new patch.
I wanted to add more "steps" to the log sweep, in order to have a more reliable representation of the fft. The $0logsweep is made of 2048 steps, which means that there are 2048 values of x and the correspondent y values. Is there any way of expanding this array, in order for it to have (for example) four times more values (8192)? I feel like, this way, it'd have a much more reliable graphical representation of the fft.
Thanks very much!
Filipe 
filipe
Great, thank you very much! I had seen the link you gave me before, but for some reason the representation of the lower frequencies isn't that accurate and user friendly. I'll try to modify it, in order to get a more accurate representation.
Thank you very much for your help once again.

filipe
@emacpher said:
I can't totally picture what you are trying to do (average x previous versions of the FFT?) but how about making a "leaky" FFT table integrator as in the attached patch. Every time you compute an FFT, compute a weighted sum of the new FFT and the old weighted sum. Basically it is a 1pole lowpass filter on the the FFT value in each bin running at whatever metro rate you like.
Maybe this can be done at block rate without the tabread~ , but I got a "DSP loop" error when I tried that.
All I was trying to do was to give an "averaged look" to my graphical representation of the FFT. So basically, instead of having an everchanging graph, the frequency amplitudes will accumulate, and by the end of the track (for example), you can tell which frequencies/frequency bands are more present.
I think you solved this problem for me emacphe, so thank you ever so much. All I need to do now is adapt it to my application in order for it to work better with music and so on. Any suggestion on how to make a graphical representation logarithmic, instead of linear?
Thanks!