[PD] send~ and receive~ issues
Piotr Majdak
piotr at majdak.com
Fri Feb 4 20:20:56 CET 2005
Hi there,
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
> forget it...
>
> the solution is order-forcing, as described in
> 3.audio.examples/G05.execution.order.pd
Thanks for your suggestions, it took some time to process them.
It was a heap of work and testing, but now I know definitively that I
don't have any order-forcing problems.
It seems like [readsf~] or [delay] have some timing problems. I reduced
my patches to something like that:
[bang(
| | | |
[delay X1] [delay X2] [delay X3] .... [delay Xn]
[1( [1( [1( [1(
[readsf~ 1] [readsf~ 1] [readsf~ 1] [readsf~ 1]
[dac~ 1] [dac~ 2] [dac~ 3] [dac~ n]
(all delays are connected to the same bang!)
Assuming X1==X2==X3==Xn all dac~'s play synchronously. That's the good
news.
Now let's set the delay to 140; 649.333; 789.333; 1300; 1440 (all these
values are integer in block size units) and look at the outputs,
relatively to the delay values. Channels 3 and 4 won't be delayed by
789.333 or 1300, but they will be played 64 samples earlier than
expected. (Or all others 64 samples later).
Something really strange: just change a delay value (and don't forget to
quantize it to 64 samples) and the situation will change: another
channels will be played earlier. Unfortunetaly, I can't see any pattern.
Do you have an idea, what's wrong with readsf~ or delay?
regards,
Piotr Majdak
--
Piotr Majdak
Institut für Schallforschung
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften
Reichsratsstr. 17
A-1010 Wien
Tel.: +43-1-4277-29511
Fax: +43-1-4277-9296
E-Mail: piotr at majdak.com
WWW: http://www.kfs.oeaw.ac.at
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list