• jamcultur

    @porres I'm not going to try to debug your code for you. Have you had anyone else try it on Windows? Don't you care whether it works properly on Windows?

    posted in technical issues read more
  • jamcultur

    @porres If you can't do anything about it, then you shouldn't call it paf~. Miller Puckette invented paf~. His paf~ is the standard. Yours doesn't work the same or sound the same as Miller Puckette's paf~ on Windows.

    posted in technical issues read more
  • jamcultur

    @porres @porres If the code on Windows was the same as the code on Mac, they would work the same. They don't work the same, so they must be different.

    Here's the object I made from F13.paf.control.pd:
    mypaf~.pd

    And here's a version of your patch that uses it:
    1767288702629-paf-test.pd

    posted in technical issues read more
  • jamcultur

    @porres There is different code running on Windows than on Mac. That must be where the problem is.

    FWIW, I made a module using the implementation of paf~ in F13.paf.control.pd, and it works the same as Puckette's compiled paf~, with the same differences from else/paf~.

    posted in technical issues read more
  • jamcultur

    @porres You can see the problem in my previous post, but it's easier to see and hear the problem with lower bandwidths. Here are the results using your patch with bandwidth=10.
    paf~problem.JPG

    posted in technical issues read more
  • jamcultur

    @porres Puckette's paf~ and else/paf~ give different results and sound different. As you can see in my last post, all of the harmonics have different volumes. The second and third harmonics are louder in Puckette's paf~. All of the other harmonics are louder in else/paf~. The differences are even more dramatic with lower values of bandwidth.

    posted in technical issues read more
  • jamcultur

    @porres I had to add paths to your patch. The result is the same as my patch.
    paf~_test.JPG

    posted in technical issues read more
  • jamcultur

    @porres With Puckette's paf~, the 528hz peak is -6dB. When I don't multiply else/paf~ output by 1.3, the 528 hz peak is -8dB. When I multiply else/paf~ output by 1.3, the 528 hz peak is -6dB, like Puckette's paf~. This image is with bandwidth=10. The peaks are the same with bandwidth=80.
    paf~bandwidth=10_noleveling.JPG

    posted in technical issues read more
  • jamcultur

    @porres I'm using Pd 0.56.2. I tried this on both Windows 10 and Windows 11 and I get the same results. What OS are you using?

    I don't add externals to Pd's path. Does else/paf~ expect to find something in the path?

    I had to multiply else/paf~'s output by 1.3 to match the level of Puckette's paf~. Is that the same for you?

    posted in technical issues read more
  • jamcultur

    @porres I’m away from my computer for a few hours. When I copied the else modules, I didn’t copy the subdirectories. Is there something in a subdirectory that I need?

    posted in technical issues read more

Internal error.

Oops! Looks like something went wrong!