[PD] no pd?? WTF ????
jancsika at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 13 20:14:58 CET 2012
----- Original Message -----
> From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju at artengine.ca>
> To: João Pais <jmmmpais at googlemail.com>
> Cc: Max <abonnements at revolwear.com>; Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com>; pd list <pd-list at iem.at>; Ben Baker-Smith <bbakersmith at gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 1:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [PD] no pd?? WTF ????
> Le 2012-01-13 à 16:10:00, João Pais a écrit :
>> I already have an abstraction in pd to automatically set the offset to play
> segments with tabread4~. But if I need e.g. to play indices 100000000 to
> 100000111, which are read from an array, and then rescaled in the meantime, how
> is it possible to keep precision using symbol-tricks?
> No. A hundred million is already beyond capacity of the float32 format (in terms
> of contiguïty), anything made with text formats will get converted to float32
> before they get used.
>> The 2nd inlet doesn't help me much, if the numbers going inside are
> still wrong.
> What can I say... just don't make them wrong ! :}
>> Or, a concrete question: my table has 15312000 samples (5m19s at 48K). You
> mean that if I want to play from index 15311000 to 15312019, (these values are
> read from a file and stored in an array, and also quantized in the way), the
> precision will be correct, just will be printed wrongly in the atom boxes?
> For [tabread~], yes, because they're below 16777216.
> For [tabread4~], it will be exactly like plain [tabread4~], because starting at
> half of 16777216, you don't have fractional indices anymore, and the whole
> point of [tabread4~] is to use fractional indices. For normal playback,
> [tabread~] is ok, but if you want to speed up or slow down the playback, you may
> need a few extra bits of precision to prevent certain artifacts.
With Katja'sdouble-precision Pd does this problem go away?
> | Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
More information about the Pd-list