[PD] bang~ <=64 samples

[marius schebella]

using tables now, coming closer!
m.

marius schebella wrote:
> ...uhmm, negative.
> I created now a subpatch with the 64 delays, and get good timer 
> measurements of 0.0226757 ms. but when I hook it up to sig~ the signal 
> is still only updated every 64 samples. same btw with vline~. I was 
> trying [$1 1.45( into line~, but that only a bad fake, and the ring 
> modulator effect is still there...
> am I missing something?
> marius.
> 
> Miller Puckette wrote:
>> Bang~ goes off at 64-sample intervals (1.45 msec) - but for instance
>> a 0.725 msec delay would sync a message to 32 sample into a 64 sample
>> buffer.  Of course you might need objects that can deal with messages on
>> such a fine time grain.  Tne only one I know of is vline~ (which is the
>> one I use for this kind of thing.)
>>
>> cheers
>> M
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:45:05PM -0400, marius schebella wrote:
>>> hi miller,
>>> not exaclty sure what sub-64-sample message delays means?
>>> block~ 64 64? or 64 delays each 0.0226757369615 ms.
>>> will test this.
>>> marius.
>>>
>>> Miller Puckette wrote:
>>>> You can do it combining bang~ with sub-64-sample message delays.
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> M
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:05:46PM -0400, marius schebella wrote:
>>>>> hi,
>>>>> is there an alternative for bang~ that will work with blocksizes 
>>>>> smaller than 64 samples?
>>>>> or is there a chance to fix bang~?
>>>>> marius.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
>>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>
> 
>