] p.s. period stems from Greek, so plesioperiodic would be more ] correct than quasiperiodic. Taken from: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Period we have: [Middle English periode, from Old French, from Medieval Latin periodus, from Latin perihodos, rhetorical period, from Greek periodos, circuit : peri-, peri- + hodos, way.] Looks to me like this is saying that there are both Greek and Latin etymologies. :-) Ciao, Peter K.
Arbitrary asynchronous (plesiochronous?) resampling in "real time"
Started by ●April 25, 2005
Reply by ●June 19, 20052005-06-19
Reply by ●August 3, 20052005-08-03
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:46:32 -0400, robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:>in article JeWdnUmc0YDNmDLfRVn-1g@rcn.net, Jerry Avins at jya@ieee.org wrote >on 06/14/2005 12:26: > >> robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> sometimes jargon is batted around for social reasons. >> >> See "shibboleth". >> >>> i'm still trying to figure out what the difference between "plesiochronous" >>> and "quasi-synchronous" is and, if there is no difference, why the need for >>> a new term? >> >> Strictly, "quasi synchronous" means "as if synchronous", which we take >> to mean "mostly behaves like synchronous, sort of". "Plesiosynchronous" >> means "nearly synchronous", which is not exactly the same thing. > >i wonder if i should change my term for musical notes (of a tonal nature and >mostly harmonic) that are eligible for reproduction using true wavetable >synthesis, from "quasi-periodic" to "plesio-periodic"?Are they slowly periodic? The "plesio" part of the "nearly synchronous" idea is that the phase difference (i.e., the synchronization) between the two clocks or references changes very slowly. So I'm not sure whether that applies to your synthesis ideas or not. Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp. My opinions may not be Intel's opinions. http://www.ericjacobsen.org
Reply by ●August 3, 20052005-08-03
in article 6frua1tqduvj62k95nl0duicanrnh5fs0e@4ax.com, Eric Jacobsen at eric.jacobsen@ieee.org wrote on 06/14/2005 19:55:> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:46:32 -0400, robert bristow-johnson > <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: > >> in article JeWdnUmc0YDNmDLfRVn-1g@rcn.net, Jerry Avins at jya@ieee.org wrote >> on 06/14/2005 12:26: >>...>>> >>> Strictly, "quasi synchronous" means "as if synchronous", which we take >>> to mean "mostly behaves like synchronous, sort of". "Plesiosynchronous" >>> means "nearly synchronous", which is not exactly the same thing. >> >> i wonder if i should change my term for musical notes (of a tonal nature and >> mostly harmonic) that are eligible for reproduction using true wavetable >> synthesis, from "quasi-periodic" to "plesio-periodic"? > > Are they slowly periodic? > > The "plesio" part of the "nearly synchronous" idea is that the phase > difference (i.e., the synchronization) between the two clocks or > references changes very slowly. > > So I'm not sure whether that applies to your synthesis ideas or not.let N x(t) = SUM{ r_n(t) * cos(n*w0*t + phi_n(t)) } n=1 where r_n(t) and phi_n(t) are both slowly changing functions. they are both virtually bandlimited to something much lower than w0. or |(d/dt)r_n| << w0*|r_n| for the most part (that's a pretty squishy description). and same for phi_n(t). x(t) does have an apparent period of 2*pi/w0 and one cycle or period will appear virtually indistinguishable from its adjacent period, but will not look like a cycle 500 or 1000 ms later. it is certainly not precisely periodic. what is x(t)? is it "quasi-periodic" or "plesio-periodic"? or something else? (i would reject the term "pseudo-periodic".) -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
