You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
test.py:TestJunoPatch plays a 4-note chord using the Juno patch 20, loaded with voices='0,1,2,3', load_patch=20. We've recently made some changes in how a complex patch like that is set up and rendered. Today, I used my compare_test_wavs.ipynb to examine why the test was giving such a relatively large error relative to the reference wav (-36.7 dB error for a -20 dB signal).
Here are the plots of the reference (from April 14) and current waveform outputs, and the difference between them:
To listen to them, they are hard to distinguish. However, there's clearly a systematic difference in the waveform that seems to be following some kind of 3 Hz triangle shape with an amplitude tending to a multiple of ~600 units.
I'm thinking it's either the LFO being added to the output (unlikely), or something with the chorus.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
test.py:TestJunoPatch
plays a 4-note chord using the Juno patch 20, loaded withvoices='0,1,2,3', load_patch=20
. We've recently made some changes in how a complex patch like that is set up and rendered. Today, I used mycompare_test_wavs.ipynb
to examine why the test was giving such a relatively large error relative to the reference wav (-36.7 dB error for a -20 dB signal).Here are the plots of the reference (from April 14) and current waveform outputs, and the difference between them:
To listen to them, they are hard to distinguish. However, there's clearly a systematic difference in the waveform that seems to be following some kind of 3 Hz triangle shape with an amplitude tending to a multiple of ~600 units.
I'm thinking it's either the LFO being added to the output (unlikely), or something with the chorus.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: