Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is awesome!

I'll certainly contribute to this. Will the source be opened up?

Here's a delay filter:

  var delay_array = [];
  var delay_length = 5;
  var delay_feedback = 0.6;
  var delay_volume = 0.4;

  function delay(x) {

    y = 0;
  
    if (delay_array.length < (delay_length * 1000)) {
      delay_array.push(x);  
    } else {
      y = delay_array.shift();
      delay_array.push(x + (y*delay_feedback));  
    }

    return (x) + ( y * delay_volume );
  
  }
Include this in the DSP return code, ie;

  return delay(synth);


Yes that's a good delay filter but it's also a good example why this type of user-programmable synth apparatus, which looks similar to CSound, won't catch on. There is much more going on in the typical delay sound itself than just a delayed iteration of a sample. A pure delay is boring. There is the possibility to model all kinds of analog and hardware digital delays with additional coding, but people have been doing that for years and it's no surprise really that commercial companies do it best (and they won't bother unless there's a way to protect proprietary code such as VST).


There's more to digital audio processing than code? I don't get it. Once the collaborative module system is in place (see milestone I) it'll allow for more complex stuff, as you'd be joining components and moving upwards in the abstraction levels, I don't see how big companies can compete with that.


No that's not the point I was making. I was saying that to make a good delay in software it can't just be a delay. To sound good, it needs additional algorithms to carry out at least 2 other DSP functions on the return signal.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: