@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?

@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.

@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

@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~.

@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.

@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.

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

@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.

@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?

@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?

@porres It's easier to see and hear with bandwidth = 10. It's also easier to see if you set the top of the pp.spectrum~ range to 2024.

@porres I already uploaded the fix.

@porres I can easily hear the difference between Puckette's paf~ and else/paf~ with bandwidth set to lower values. The difference is more subtle with higher bandwidth values. When using formants to create vowel sounds, the bandwidth is normally under 200.

@porres My patch used some of my own objects so I made a new patch that doesn't use them. Oops, there was a problem with the first one so I uploaded it again.
paf~test.pd

I multiplied the output of else/paf~ by 1.3 so that the level of the highest peak would match Puckette's paf~. I used a frequency range of 30 hz to 2024 hz in audiolab/pp.spectrum~

@porres The cosine version looks the same as before with fundamental=264, formant=650, bandwidth=10. The top spectrogram is Miller Puckette's paf~, bottom is else/paf~

I just noticed one small difference; the cosine version has a small peak below 40hz that the previous version didn't have.

@porres I copied everything and I'm not getting that message anymore, but else/paf~ does not give the same results as Miller Puckette's paf~. The first image shows spectrograms from both versions of paf~ with the first six harmonics of the fundamental frequency=264, the formant center frequency=650, and the bandwidth=80. Miller Puckette's paf~ is at the top, and else/paf~ is at the bottom. The second and third harmonics are about the same in both, but the other harmonics are significantly higher in else/paf~.

The second image is the same except with bandwidth=10 in both versions of paf~. Changing the bandwidth to 10 made a big difference in Miller Puckette's paf~. All but the second and third harmonics were eliminated. Changing bandwidth to 10 in else/paf~ made almost no difference in the spectrogram or in the sound.

The third image shows both version of paf~ with bandwidth=500. The results were much closer, but not identical. The highest peak in Miller Puckette's paf~ was at 528 hz, while the highest peak in else/paf~ was at 793 hz.

@porres I got this when I tried to use paf~

@porres I just found this paper that says "SuperCollider has a uGen formlet [14] dating back to 2002 which forms a FOF-type wave burst using the difference between two second-order resonant bandpass filters having different decay rates but the same center frequency." So formlet isn't exactly FOF, but it gives similar results.

@porres It looks like the Formant UGen example might be an implementation of FOF, based on the formants it produces. Also, the bandwidth parameter in the Formant UGen alters the formant the way that it should in FOF. Specifying bandwidth as a ratio is a little strange, but it has the right result. I'd prefer to specify the bandwidth in hertz. I don't know what the first example is, but it is not a correct implementation of FOF.

I just installed 0.71.1 on Windows 11, and it seems to be working fine.