ah, interesting, ya i was working off that pan-law-based assumption(plus, when i test, i never use perfectly correlated signals… assuming i might hear it more the way people will use it, didn’t realize that about ‘bits of the same periodic signal’, now that you mention it, it does actually make sense with sampling of tonal material, in particular)… and i agree: i’d even say there’s a ‘feel’(performance-wise) of more ease to “have a dip when working with noisy signals than a bump with tonal signals”
i also tried this:
interpExponentialEaseInOut(value) {
result = value;
if (value> 0 && value< 0.5) {
result = 0.5 * pow(2, (20 * value) - 10);
} else if (value< 1 && value> 0.5) {
result = -0.5 * pow(2, (-20 * value) + 10) + 1;
}
return result;
}
and this:
interpQuinticEaseInOut(value)
{
result = value;
if (value < 0.5) {
result = 16 * value * value * value * value * value;
} else {
tempValue = ((2 * value) - 2);
result = 0.5 * tempValue * tempValue * tempValue * tempValue * tempValue + 1;
}
return result;
}
and they both were more ‘bumpy’ than the simpler cosine(which is what i didn’t like about switch&ramp, too - i think no matter how smooth, too abrupt a change might be too abrupt a change… but of course, always on the lookout for anything more ideal).
[Edit: and also with this:
i’m running into that prob, too, plus i realize now i need to add checks for sample-accurately triggering one head to cut too close to the other for a complete/smooth duck to occur 
]
anyways, thanks for sharing your thoughts, @zebra …helps me keep looking/thinking on this 
