mis at music.mcgill.ca
Tue Aug 28 16:14:36 CEST 2001
I still think writing to arrays is your best bet. I haven't done it with
sample precision but in my current project I sample the input (2 sec) and
start immediately reading but at a slower pace. What I'm doing is probably
different from what you want to do but similar in concept. In fact I have 4
"pointers" reading from the same array starting +/- 10 ms apart and stepping
forward. I was not concerned with sample precision though.
I built upon the looping sampler example in the docs (driven by phasor~).
On 8/27/01 2:55 PM, "G.G Karman" <ggkarman at airtel.net> wrote:
> Yes you're right, using two arrays, writing and reading each one
> alternatively could be a solution i hadn't thought about. But that would
> mean that the samples i read from the (reading-)array would always be 'one
> array' later than real time(a delay corresponding to the size of the
> writing-array). Of course smaller arrays could be used (which i would
> prefer not to as i want to be able to access for example, fragments within the
> last 5 seconds), or as you suggested more smaller arrays.
> I was rather thinking if it could be possible to make delread~ (or some
> other object or simple patch) behave like the circular queue as described
> in Curtis Roads (The computer music tutorial,p 433), with the posibility of
> several taps (reading-pointers) which reading position i could control with
> (one-)sample precision. This structure would allow to access samples from
> real time (in fact one sample later than real time) to the time
> corresponding to the total length of the queue.
More information about the Pd-list