[PD] Conflict between radcrusher/bitcrusher and writesf~

[tim vets]

my cheap take on a bitcrusher :)
I notice that samphold~'s sampling rate should stay below 44.1 kHz or it
will not output anything
anyone care to explain why exactly?

2014-11-20 16:18 GMT+01:00 Ronni Montoya <ronni.montoya at gmail.com>:

> 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.
>
> cheers
>
>
>
> 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/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20141121/1cc74dc4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: brusher.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 770 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20141121/1cc74dc4/attachment.zip>