[PD] [poly N 0] bug

William Huston williamahuston at gmail.com
Mon May 16 02:06:02 CEST 2016

Yes, that's what I want, proper mono mode, with opt. auto glissando when 2+
notes are played.

Maybe it's a feature enhancement.

That's the abstraction I'm working on.

I'm trying to implement a 6-element linked list, with push/pop (front of
list), shift/unshift (end of list), and delete... it's possible, but
challenging. Lot of work.

On Sunday, May 15, 2016, Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com> wrote:
> [poly 1 0] means that until its note is released, all incoming notes
between onset and offset of the only voice's note should be completely
invisible to it (that's what "one-voice polyphony with no voice stealing"
should mean, I think). I don't think it should suddenly output the values
of another note that happened to have been depressed and held in the
meantime. I think what you're looking for is something different from the
voice allocation in [poly]; you're looking more for assigning note priority
in monophonic instruments. If I'm understanding you correctly, in order to
do what you want with [poly], you would need to manage a very large
internal polyphony to keep track of all the potential voices that could be
being sustained when a voice receives a note off.
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 4:47 AM, William Huston <williamahuston at gmail.com>
>> Sorry, Sourceforge is blocked for me.
>> I noticed that when using [poly 1 0] (note stealing off)
>> when I would smash multi-note chords and release notes,
>> sometimes I would be left pressing a note,
>> yet the output of [poly] is silence.
>> I thought this might be a bug with the Windows MIDI driver,
>> but it is definitely a bug with [poly], because with higher
>> values of N, [poly N 0] knows the correct notes
>> remaining.
>> See attached ZIP file.
>> There is an HTML+image included which explains
>> how to run the patch to demonstrate the issue.
>> The problem is there is a race condition.
>> Lets say you smash the following chord:
>> ("smash" means play all notes as simultaneously as possible)
>> 24 26 28 29 31 33  [C-D-E-F-G-A]
>> Now the value which will be latched by [poly 1 0] is random.
>> Let's say it is 28.
>> Now we release 33, 31,29 .... ALL GOOD!
>> Now release 29.
>> NOTE 24, 26, 28 are still depressed!
>> [poly] doesn't know what to do here, and releases 28, ALL NOTES OFF.
Yet I am still holding down 3 notes.
>> The problem here is how do deal with this condition is ambiguous.
>> Should [poly] have "highest note value" priority? (and jump to 26)
>> Or "lowest note value" priority? (and jump to 24)
>> Or "order received" priority? (and jump to to the latest received of
>> Or maybe "reverse order received" priority? (and jump to the earliest
received of [24,26])
>> I would request a feature enhancement to provide some way to set
>> the mode of poly (new inlet, message to inlet1, and/or starting
parameter) to chose one of these four modes.
>> In the meantime, I think I can code my own version of what I need as an
>> Thanks Miller and everyone who contributes here for such an awesome
>> BH
>> --
>> --
>> May you, and all beings
>> be happy and free from suffering :)
>> -- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->

May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160515/8a3bc4f5/attachment.html>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list