[PD] how to know line~ has finished

Andy Farnell padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk
Thu Jul 19 18:23:21 CEST 2007


Nice demo Frank, what was the purpose of the [t3_line~] that Gerhard
and Thomas wrote? Is it now deprecated in view of [vline~]? I assume 
[t3_delay] was a stopgap solution to this block quantize issue, or am
I missing something else?


On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:10:52 +0200
Frank Barknecht <fbar at footils.org> wrote:

> Hallo,
> Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
> 
> > If you would like a bang message when [1 300(-[line~] is complete then you merely
> > have to say
> > 
> >        [bang(
> >          |
> > [t       b         b]
> >  |                |
> > [del 300]      [1 300(
> >   |               |
> > [outlet done]   [line~]
> >                   |
> >               [outlet line]
> > 
> > Even though the evaluation goes right-left and depth first the bang appearing
> > at [outlet done] happens at the **exact** logical time that [line~] is complete.
> 
> As Roman noted it is not exactly exact if you're starting your [line~]
> and [delay] from a clock-delayed message, because then [delay] will
> still keep logical time, while [line~] is quantized to 64 samples.
> 
> But in practice this generally isn't an issue: If such accuracy is
> required in an application (e.g. granular synthesis), nobody  would
> (or should) use [line~] anyway, [vline~] is the line to go for here.
> 
> If one *really* wants get back the inaccurate block-quantized delays
> one's used to from Max, attached patch illustrates a possible approach
> using [bang~].
> 
> Ciao
> -- 
>  Frank Barknecht                 _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
> 


-- 
Use the source




More information about the Pd-list mailing list