[PD] how to know line~ has finished
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:
> 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~].
> Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
Use the source
More information about the Pd-list