[PD] So [bang~] can't "bang" in less than 64 blocksize, huh?

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

"
*I have not tested this, but let me ask if you did already try putting a**bang~
in a subpatch which itself is reblocked using block~ ?*"

Of course, I even sent such a patch to the pd list in this thread, check it
out...

cheers

ps. block~ doesn't have to be in a subpatch, it also works on the parent
patch, although you won't be able to use objects like [adc~]/[dac~]

2015-03-14 11:59 GMT-03:00 Peter P. <peterparker at fastmail.com>:

> * Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com> [2015-03-14 15:52]:
> > "*I assume that's what bang~ was designed for. It is not an 'audio rate*
> >
> > *bang' but something that lets you get timing information from audio*
> > *blocks*"
> >
> > but it doesn't work for blocks lesser than 64... can't bang at each 32,
> 16,
> > 8, 4, 2, 1 block samples... this was unexpected to me and what made me
> > wonder about similar/parallel behaviours from other objects, which I also
> > found to exist.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> >
> > 2015-03-14 6:18 GMT-03:00 Peter P. <peterparker at fastmail.com>:
> >
> > > * Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com> [2015-03-14 06:02]:
> > > > I was trying to get a bang at every sample and found out that the
> minimum
> > > > time bang~ works is at the 64 blocksize, check attached patch.
> > > I assume that's what bang~ was designed for. It is not an 'audio rate
> > > bang' but something that lets you get timing information from audio
> > > blocks, eg. deriving a video playback frame rate in sync to an audio
> > > stream.
> > >
>
> I have not tested this, but let me ask if you did already try putting a
> bang~ in a subpatch which itself is reblocked using block~ ?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20150314/675564a4/attachment.html>