[PD] soundfiler features

Lucas Cordiviola lucarda27 at hotmail.com
Wed Feb 22 13:08:15 CET 2017


>[soundfile_info] seems the better choice and

is able to read all files that are read by [readsf~]/[soundfiler], from

what I can tell.

In the past I found discrepancies on *sound file length*:

[soundfiler] != [sounfile_info]
[soundfiler] == soundforge



Mensaje telepatico asistido por maquinas.


________________________________
From: Pd-list <pd-list-bounces at lists.iem.at> on behalf of Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 8:19 AM
To: pd-list at lists.iem.at
Subject: Re: [PD] soundfiler features

On Die, 2017-02-21 at 11:01 +0000, Ed Kelly via Pd-list wrote:
>
> Since this information is contained within the header of each file
> (although it's a pain with the different formats), would it not be
> sensible to have a second outlet in soundfiler that delivers the
> number of channels, before the number of samples in the file is
> delivered from the left outlet? Perhaps also other info, but what
> would be relevant to a patch? I think channels is a necessary piece
> of information.

I, too, think that [soundfiler] should output some sound file
properties instead using them only internally. It would be good to be
able to make patches where the patch creator doesn't need to know
beforehand what exact formats are going to be opened by the patch user.

I'd like to know the following properties (in descending order of
necessity):
 * number of channels
 * sample rate
 * bit depth

There are at least two externals, that provide this info: ext13's
[wavinfo] and [soundfile_info] from iemlib. In my experience, the
former doesn't read correctly all wav files that are read by other
programs or by Pd, I believe it assumes a certain layout instead of
truly parsing the header. [soundfile_info] seems the better choice and
is able to read all files that are read by [readsf~]/[soundfiler], from
what I can tell.

Roman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20170222/e31d71e3/attachment.html>


More information about the Pd-list mailing list