[PD] polypoly's second inlet

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,

Phil Stone hat gesagt: // Phil Stone wrote:

> Frank, if you have a few moments, could you explain a little about how 
> this wiring works in [polypoly]?  I see in the [pd init] subpatch of 
> [polypoly] where the connections are made, but I don't understand why 
> the first inlet goes only to the current [poly]-selected voice, while 
> the second goes to all second inlets of all the cloned abstractions.   
> It's hard to envision what the final patch would look like, or why it 
> would look that way, at least.

Hm, I think, you're misreading the automatically generated instances
of the wrapper abstractions a bit. You'll probably see it a bit better
if you move around the abstractions in [pd $0-poly] a bit, otherwise
the patchcords and objects are on top of each other.

Basically [pd init] only sets up the basic stuff in [pd $0-poly], that
is, first it clears this subpatch, then it creates "fake inlets and
outlets" as senders rsp. receivers. 

Then the wrappers are created and connected like this: 

 [r in1]
 |
 [polypoly-wrap whatever 0 ...]
 |             
 [polypoly-wrap whatever 1 ...]
 | 
 [polypoly-wrap whatever 2 ...]
 | 
 [polypoly-wrap whatever 3 ...]
 | 
 ...

[r in2] then is connected to every second inlet of polypoly-wrap and
both signal outlets (second and third outlets) of polypoly-wrap are
connected to the fake signal outlets: [throw~ out0] and [throw~ out1]

> >It may be nice if [poly]
> >would support "note amp foo bar etc." lists.
> >  
> 
> I agree; that would make [polypoly] useful for any conceivable kind of 
> abstraction cloning, not just synth voices constrained to a {note, amp} 
> model.   But you can only work with what you have, of course.

Btw.: My proposed [list] trick is almost directly taken from Miller's
example and explanation in 3.audio.examples/D11.sampler.poly.pd only
Miller uses a [pack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0] instead of [list] probably just
because the patch was written when Pd didn't have [list]. You could
study this patch and the respective part in Miller's book as well to
get a feel for the idiom I'm referring to.

> I know sometimes it's hard to hear "tone" in email, so I just want to 
> make it clear that I am not criticizing [polypoly].  I think it's 
> awesome, and am very grateful for your work on it.  I'm trying to 
> understand it better, though.

I think I understood you quite well and I definitely welcome your kind
of constructive feedback and suggestions.

Ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                 _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__