metro vs. samm~ [was: Re: [PD] Re: pix_film more questions]

padawan12 padawan12 at
Mon Feb 19 05:39:45 CET 2007

If I understood Erics paper correctly [samm~] allows you to specify
which sample of a block is set consistently, if you like a periodic 
version of [dirac~]. That's surely useful if you want to do somthing
in the signal domain like convolution with a impulse train. 

What I couldn't figure, is this really equivilent to

[phasor~ 0.0173474647]  very accurate signal phasor
[>=~ 0.9999999999999]  "floated" 1.0 so we get an equivilence

which should give a single sample set on the top of each phasor
cycle. But I seem to remember this not working properly for some

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:53:52 +0100
Frank Barknecht <fbar at> wrote:

> Hallo,
> schiemer at hat gesagt: // schiemer at wrote:
> > If you're worried by metro's irregularity then you should use Eric
> > Lyons' samm~ (sample accurate multiple metronomes). This is
> > described in
> >
> Note that samm~ is almost exactly as sample-accurate as Pd's metro. I
> tried to illustrate this in attached patch. samm~ however is also
> available for Max, where the metro according to Eric's paper is not as
> accurate as the one in Pd, so if you need to move patches between both
> systems, samm~ is a good choice. Of course Eric's system has some
> convenient extensions to generate polyrhythms etc., but timing alone
> IMO is no reason to exchange [metro] with [samm~] on Pd.
> Ciao
> -- 
>  Frank Barknecht                 _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__

More information about the Pd-list mailing list