[PD] s~ & r~ with block size other than 64?
Alexandre Torres Porres
porres at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 05:11:40 CET 2016
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 :)
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
>> 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)
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list