Comments on: Free Audio Warping: Max Patcher Strikes Back with No-Fee elastic~ Alternative

By: Jamie Bullock

Jamie Bullock — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:08:41 +0000

@Peter, if you're looking for a Pd equivalent to Free_Elastic, I think the Phase Vocoder (I07) in the examples that come with Pd would serve as a good starting point. For a granular approach, it might be worth looking at Phil Stone's polygrainsynth. The only externals are svf~ and mrpeach's osc, both of which could be avoided if necessary. It's not as 'realistic' sounding as elastic~, but it could be a lot more fun!

By: Timo

Timo — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:19:24 +0000

cool patch, but nothing new. Elastic~ is still interesting because it works differently with a different algorithm and will produce better results for smaller deviations from the normal pitch/speed. Plus: this patch introduces a latency of about 70 ms due to itâ€™s fft nature. Elastic~ and Mattijs Kneppersâ€™ granular implementation do not have this drawback.

plus: the makers of elastic~ probably wonâ€™t make any money of their object, because they paid a vast amount to be able to use this z-plane algorithm

By: Chainsaw~

Chainsaw~ — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:14:42 +0000

The gizmo~ help file sounds like ass. Elastic~ is an order of magnitude better quality pitch shifting than this. I gladly forked over the cash and I hope the guys do well with it.

By: kevin

kevin — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:12:31 +0000

I plan to do these sorts of studies in the next couple of weeks.

I did a preliminary run of elastic~ and free_elastic and the two sounded nearly identical on my laptop speakers (obviously not the best test equipment).

I’ll be posting my results to the monome forums, http://post.monome.org/comments.php?DiscussionID=2708

By: Peter Kirn

Peter Kirn — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:00:41 +0000

@Jean-Francois: Right, exactly — I’m a bit unclear about what the fuss is about here.

elastic~ gives you effectively a license for a commercial algorithm.

These other alternatives use readily-available modules so you can stay within Max — with both the FFT and granular approach, so two additional different sounds.

There should theoretically be an advantage to each approach, and indeed, would be great to A/B/C test the three.

By: Jean-FranÃ§ois Charles

Jean-FranÃ§ois Charles — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:54:37 +0000

Note that elastic does not use the same algorithm as this free alternative.
It would be interesting to compare both methods (FFT and elastic~) with the same sound, and to listen carefully to details, including transients.

By: jock

jock — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:52:02 +0000

Wow, that’s great.

you can remove my angry comment about it costing money from the other post if you’d like.

By: 4lefts

4lefts — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:06:10 +0000

“Andreas Wetterberg

I have to point out that…”

thanks for the link. that patch scares me a little – there’s a lot of “granular best practice” learning to be done in there. thanks.

By: Wallace Winfrey

Wallace Winfrey — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:28:10 +0000

It should be noted that Mattijs MPC-inspired drum sampler isn’t just ANY MPC-inspired drum sampler, it’s an OSC-controllable MPC-inspired drum sampler!

Can’t wait for the OO objects to be fully ported to Max 5 so the MPC Studio can be hacked on some more.

By: Andreas Wetterberg

Andreas Wetterberg — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:03:43 +0000

I have to point out that a) There are a NUMBER of different pitching/stretching options for Max, and that b) one of the best ones is done by veteran patcher, Mattijs Kneppers:
http://www.cycling74.com/twiki/bin/view/Share/MattijsKneppers

^^^ Download link is in there, too. It sounds so good, and you can go from a tight shift/repitch to a massive granular cloud really easily. And at least to my ears granular shifting sounds MUCH better than fft-based work. YMMV.

Andreas.