[PD] Scope of [block~] and [switch~]
mpuckett at imusic1.ucsd.edu
Mon Oct 20 17:14:30 CEST 2008
One small warning - the output of samplerate~ is confusing if there is
overlap - samplerate~ output goes up by the overlap factor, which is
arguably incorrect. It needs replacing by a more comprehensive solution.
Also the default upsampling algorithm is incorrect - if you upsaple by
2, for instance, incoming signals get interleaved with zeros, which does
not result in a unity DC gain. I've been fretting over whether this
should be changed (incompatibly!) to make it "correct' or just leave it wrong.
The throw~/catch~ 64-sample restriction is fixable. It would be a much
bigger project to make them work across arbitrary changes of sample rate,
block size, and overlap.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 02:57:57PM +0200, Derek Holzer wrote:
> Hi David,
> try putting [samplerate~] in each subpatch or abstraction to see if the
> changes by [block~] are passed down. I don't know offhand if they are,
> but I *think* that is correct.
> David F. Place wrote:
> > This is confusing to me. If the overlap and resampling ratio are
> > relative to the super-patch, then shouldn't block~ set the block size,
> > overlap, and up/down-sampling ratio for the window and all its sub
> > windows? (sub-patches and abstractions) Is that how it works, in fact?
> derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista
> ---Oblique Strategy # 142:
> "Shut the door and listen from outside"
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
More information about the Pd-list