[PD] Conflict between radcrusher/bitcrusher and writesf~

Ronni Montoya ronni.montoya at gmail.com
Thu Nov 20 16:18:13 CET 2014

Hi Chris , you mean using samphold~ and wrap~ instead of the
bitcrusher abstraction?
How can i use those objects for bitcrushing?

I attached this patch so you can see the problem.


2014-11-19 19:24 GMT-08:00, Chris McCormick <chris at mccormick.cx>:
> Hi Ronni,
> On 20/11/14 04:31, Ronni Montoya wrote:
>> Any idea why is this? how can i solve this problem?
> My guess is something to do with changing blocksize using block~. Would
> help if you posted the abstractions.
> You can accomplish both bitcrushing and downsampling without affecting
> the actual blocksize Pd is running at by using samphold~ and wrap~.
> Cheers,
> Chris.
> --
> http://mccormick.cx/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dyn_crush.pd
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2342 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20141120/851d69aa/attachment.obj>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list