Re: Phase offset for OscillatorNodes?

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Srikumar Karaikudi Subramanian <
srikumarks@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jussi and others,
>
> Some questions came to my mind -
>
> When an oscillator node generates a signal based on a given wavetable (or
> "fourier series" or whatever it is going to be renamed as) that has
> multiple frequency components in it, which component(s) would such a phase
> offset change? Only the fundamental f0? ... or will n x phaseOffset will be
> used for each of the n x f0 frequency components, which amounts to a time
> delay of the signal? ... Or is it going to apply only in the
> sine/square/triangle cases and remain an unused parameter in the case of
> wavetables?
>

I was expecting it to apply to all types.  Since we're talking about a
periodic signal where each cycle has a tangible representation in the time
domain, it really does make sense to talk about a particular phase position
within the cycle.  We can represent that as 0 -> 2*Pi or from 0 -> 1


>
> If the n x phaseOffset approach is going to be taken, why not just call it
> "delay"? ... and what are the cases in which tacking on a delay node to the
> current oscillator node won't do to achieve the phase shift?
>

It doesn't seem like it would be good to incur the actual delay/latency
when "notes" are scheduled to start at an exact time.  You want the
oscillator to start at the exact time, but at a particular phase offset in
the cycle.  Also, if you want to modulate the phase for pulse-width
modulation effects, etc. it seems better to handle this directly in the
OscillatorNode since higher-quality interpolation can come for free.  Doing
this with a DelayNode seems like it would be tricky since you'd have to
account for the actual delay/latency of any scheduled parameters affecting
the OscillatorNode.



>
> Best,
> -Kumar
>
> On 27 Nov, 2012, at 3:08 AM, Jussi Kalliokoski <
> jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 indeed!
>
> On Nov 26, 2012 11:06 PM, "Chris Wilson" <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1!
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Patrick Borgeat <
> patrick.borgeat@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sounds awesome!
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/11/26 Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, .phaseOffset is really what it needs to be I think.  This would
> be additive with the cummulative phase from .frequency (and .detune).  This
> seems nice since if you set .frequency to 0, then there would be no
> cummulative phase and you could control the phase directly with
> .phaseOffset.  How does that sound?
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>