[PD] multichannel vs many stereo writesf objects?
danomatika at gmail.com
Wed Sep 30 12:39:25 CEST 2020
I agree as well that 1 writesf~ is preferable.
Also, as you may or may not know, if you need *very long* audio recording support, you can try building the branch which includes the CAF file format which uses 64 bit indices:
Doing basic recording or playback of files > 4 GB should work, but accessing via sample position, etc won't work unless you also build Pd with double support otherwise Pd's internal float will clip your larger sample indices.
I'm hoping for this branch to be integrated in the next Pd version, so it would be great if more people can test it. It also includes a number of bug fixes, better format handling, etc.
> On Sep 29, 2020, at 12:00 PM, pd-list-request at lists.iem.at wrote:
> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 18:08:54 -0700
> From: Josh Moore <kh405.7h30ry at gmail.com <mailto:kh405.7h30ry at gmail.com>>
> To: Fede Camara Halac <camarafede at gmail.com <mailto:camarafede at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list at lists.iem.at>" <pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list at lists.iem.at>>
> Subject: Re: [PD] multichannel vs many stereo writesf objects?
> <CA+AZ=uoeLO6pYOkR+=bDhPie6ZQ9L68S42Fc66=Rm7RLGTiQWQ at mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA+AZ=uoeLO6pYOkR+=bDhPie6ZQ9L68S42Fc66=Rm7RLGTiQWQ at mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> One writesf~ is better.
> If you want to extract the wavs to their own track, well they're basically
> broadcast wavs. I'm quite fond of BWF.
> Just be aware that it's 32 bit unless they've updated it to 64 bit wav and
> you'll have a 4 gb size limit which for multichannel wavs uses up rather
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list