K5synth

Ok,
Leslie, in a previous e-mail you provided the following equation for
converting linear spectra to K5.  Thank you.  You wrote:
Log2(149.5744446 * partial) * 10 / step

I assume that Log2 means "Log base 2","partial" is a linear value
ranging from 0 to 1, and that "step" is dB/K5 step = 72.24719896/99. 
I played with this and I think I got it to work.  

For example, if the Linear value is 1, the K5 value should be 99.  
Log2(149.5744446*1)*10*99/72.24719896 = 99.

With that said, I came up with the K5 values for the Waldorf waves
(from the 300Waves.pdf) number 10, 15, 84, 181, 385 and 415 – they
looked interesting.  By looking at Waldorf wave 101 (pure sine wave) I
conclude that the first line shown on the graph is actually the
fundamental rather than the  1st harmonic. (Is that correct, is
frequency of the 1st harmonic actually twice the fundamental or I am I
confused on the nomenclature?) 

Anyway, I will post an Excel file with the result.  What I did was
simply copy the spectrum from the Waldorf .pdf (I first zoomed to
500%), and put it in the spread sheet, sized it and then just
eyeballed the values and put them in the cells right below the graph.
 I then used the above equation to get the K5 values.  This excel
sheet works like a template, so all you have to do is copy a spectra,
resize the graph, enter the linear values in ROW 50 starting at B50
and the K5 values will show up in column "BS" (no pun intended)
automatically  (more or less).  Once you get the hang of it you can
decode a wave in less than 5 minutes. 

I will post this Excel file in the same place as the .pdfs (Hard Copy
Spectra).

>Leslie, in a previous e-mail you provided the following equation for
>converting linear spectra to K5.  Thank you.  You wrote:
>Log2(149.5744446 * partial) * 10 / step
>
>I assume that Log2 means "Log base 2","partial" is a linear value
>ranging from 0 to 1, and that "step" is dB/K5 step = 72.24719896/99.

Yup, that's it.

I got some nice confirmation that this equation works correctly today. I 
recorded the K5 playing a single partial at various amplitudes. Then I 
looked at the waveforms in a wave editor program and compared the linear 
amplitude of the waveforms to the K5 amplitudes the partial was set to (hope 
this makes sense). They matched up with what the equation said they should 
be.

>I played with this and I think I got it to work.

Cool!

>With that said, I came up with the K5 values for the Waldorf waves
>(from the 300Waves.pdf) number 10, 15, 84, 181, 385 and 415 \ufffd they
>looked interesting.  By looking at Waldorf wave 101 (pure sine wave) I
>conclude that the first line shown on the graph is actually the
>fundamental rather than the  1st harmonic. (Is that correct, is
>frequency of the 1st harmonic actually twice the fundamental or I am I
>confused on the nomenclature?)

That's my understanding. You have the fundamental, 1st harmonic, 2nd 
harmonic, etc. A lot of graphs seem to get this wrong.

Hey, I was looking at one of the links you posted, and found that some 
interesting graphs based on the Waldorf waves. Here's an example:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~hkwad/waldorf/fft000.htm

If you place the mouse over the red dots, a tooltip with appear with the 
exact amplitude of the harmonic. Would this save you some work?

I'll check out your Excel spreadsheet.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Leslie,
Hello again.  I am going to post a new Excel worksheet that is sort-of
envelope generating tool that sort-of mimics wavetable scanning.

What you do it put in four different waves (start to finish if you
will if you were doing a wave scan) select a few general options on
the speed attack/decay/release, hit a button and the program generates
 envelopes to sort-of fit the waves.  That is, it generates four
different envelopes and then assign each harmonic to the "best
fitting" envelope.

My question:  I can generate the details of the envelope, including
assigning each harmonic to the appropriate envelope,but I do not know
how to take that information, turn it into sysex, and ship it out via
midi to the K5.  Can you help with generating/sending the associated
sysex?

I was thinking what would work great is if you could you expand your
WaveAnalyzer so that I could copy/paste from Excel the envelope
information and the Harmonic series in to the WaveAnalyzer, and then
just send out the sysex from WaveAnalyzer.  (I would like to just send
the sysex out from Excel, but I just don't know how to do that.  I am
not a programmer...)

Thoughts?
   



  
 
--- In k5synth@...m, "Leslie Sanford" <jabberdabber@h...>
wrote:
> >Leslie, in a previous e-mail you provided the following equation for
> >converting linear spectra to K5.  Thank you.  You wrote:
> >Log2(149.5744446 * partial) * 10 / step
> >
> >I assume that Log2 means "Log base 2","partial" is a linear value
> >ranging from 0 to 1, and that "step" is dB/K5 step = 72.24719896/99.
> 
> Yup, that's it.
> 
> I got some nice confirmation that this equation works correctly
today. I 
> recorded the K5 playing a single partial at various amplitudes. Then I 
> looked at the waveforms in a wave editor program and compared the
linear 
> amplitude of the waveforms to the K5 amplitudes the partial was set
to (hope 
> this makes sense). They matched up with what the equation said they
should 
> be.
> 
> >I played with this and I think I got it to work.
> 
> Cool!
> 
> >With that said, I came up with the K5 values for the Waldorf waves
> >(from the 300Waves.pdf) number 10, 15, 84, 181, 385 and 415 – they
> >looked interesting.  By looking at Waldorf wave 101 (pure sine wave) I
> >conclude that the first line shown on the graph is actually the
> >fundamental rather than the  1st harmonic. (Is that correct, is
> >frequency of the 1st harmonic actually twice the fundamental or I am I
> >confused on the nomenclature?)
> 
> That's my understanding. You have the fundamental, 1st harmonic, 2nd 
> harmonic, etc. A lot of graphs seem to get this wrong.
> 
> Hey, I was looking at one of the links you posted, and found that some 
> interesting graphs based on the Waldorf waves. Here's an example:
> 
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~hkwad/waldorf/fft000.htm
> 
> If you place the mouse over the red dots, a tooltip with appear with
the 
> exact amplitude of the harmonic. Would this save you some work?
> 
> I'll check out your Excel spreadsheet.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
FREE! 
> hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/