[PD] s~ & r~ with block size other than 64?

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

sure, I'm aware of how to do it, and I prefer delays. But I was just really
wondering if there was a good reason for it, maybe hoping to a day that
comes and allows it :)

cheers

2016-02-26 0:38 GMT-03:00 Claude Heiland-Allen <claude at mathr.co.uk>:

> On 26/02/16 03:21, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
>
>> howdy, is there any particularly good reason why [s~]/[r~] must run at
>> only
>> 64 block sizes?
>>
>> if the issue is that they may have conflicting/different sizes between
>> them, why not give the same error as you get now for blocks other than 64?
>>
>> "receive~ x: vector size mismatch
>> sigsend x: unexpected vector size"
>>
>> It'd be really convenient for feedback loops
>>
>
> if you want something that works right now, tabsend~ and tabreceive~ don't
> have any restriction about table size must be equal to block size must be
> equal to 64
>
> see attached example of a single self-modulating fm oscillator with single
> sample feedback (block~ 1)
>
>
> Claude
> --
> http://mathr.co.uk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160226/a796d3cc/attachment-0001.html>