[PD] Max's [rate~] implementation...
Alexandros Drymonitis
adrcki at gmail.com
Fri Dec 7 13:54:12 CET 2012
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Lorenzo Sutton <lorenzofsutton at gmail.com>wrote:
> On 06/12/12 15:31, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>>
>> Leaving out [rate~] should use less CPU since [rate~] doesn't have to do
>> the analysis part, if I understand it correctly.
>>
>
> If I understand correctly what rate~ does, the argument is actually a
> factor, so I thnk the frequency for the phasor~ has to be 1 / factor... So
> for example
>
> [rate~ 1.5]
>
> is [phasor~ 0.666667]
>
> Lorenzo.
>
"rate~ accepts an input signal from a phasor~ and time scales it by a
multiplier received as a float in its right inlet". This is what the help
patch says. Although, in the oscilloscope of the patch it looks like it is
divided indeed. Dunno..
>
>>
>>
>>
>> .hc
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote:
>>
>> Don't think I really follow. Each [rate~] actually outputs a [phasor~]
>>> with a different frequency (different frequency ratio), all driven by the
>>> same [phasor~]. How can you send a value from one number box to all
>>> [phasor~]s?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at<mailto:
>>> hans at at.or.at>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not just use a phasor~ per rate~ and then have the frequency
>>> of all them controlled by the same number box?
>>>
>>> .hc
>>>
>>> On Dec 6, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote:
>>>
>>> copy this patch
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=6P4Ezz9aWa8&feature=plcp<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P4Ezz9aWa8&feature=plcp>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Simon Iten <itensimon at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:itensimon at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What are you trying to accomplish?
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 6, 2012 2:48 PM, "Alexandros Drymonitis"
>>>> <adrcki at gmail.com <mailto:adrcki at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How can one implement Max's [rate~] in Pd? [rate~] takes
>>>> a signal from a [phasor~] and according to its argument
>>>> it scales the frequency (roughly speaking). So
>>>>
>>>> [phasor~ 1]
>>>> |
>>>> [rate~ 1.5]
>>>>
>>>> will actually give a [phasor~ 1.5]. I thought of [wrap]
>>>> but that won't do the trick with non-integers.
>>>> Any ideas?
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Pd-list at iem.at <mailto:Pd-list at iem.at> mailing list
>>>>
>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/**listinfo/pd-list<http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Pd-list at iem.at <mailto:Pd-list at iem.at> mailing list
>>>>
>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/**listinfo/pd-list<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 <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 <http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20121207/3bdd9f7f/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list