Em qui., 19 de jan. de 2023 às 17:14, Miller Puckette <m...@ucsd.edu> escreveu:
> Aha, yes, let's do that. It would be sort-of compatible with existing > patches (just the control would be different.) > > One thing I never figured out was how to: (1) offer mono and stereo > operation > int he same object; and Not sure what you mean, but I do have a hack that allows me to distribute a mono input in the left inlet to both left and right output. I use it in my [else/out~] abstraction. Because [inlet~] now has an inlet for default value, I give it a ridiculous default value of '10000', so when no signal is connected to the right inlet, it outputs this stupid number and I check for it, it is equal to it I do assume we have a mono input and route the left inlet to both channels. Sounds good? Find attached a new object I'm starting from scratch with this hack. > (2) allow the level to be changed externally without > havin to add another (confusing) inlet. Well, [inlet~ fwd] allows us to do that now and in fact I have already implemented it in the existing [output~] abstraction so it takes a 'level message' to control the output level. I also use a bang message to control the mute logic. > So it's the lack of an all-around > "best" way to do it that's held me back from putting something in "extra" > so far. > Ok, let me continue to work on this one now then. cheers > > But meanwhile, I think someday I should go ahead and split "extra" into > true necessities (sigmund~, bonk~, and a couple of stupid compatibility > objects) and things that are "useful" (such as the reverberators). Again > I've been held back by not having a clear definition of what I think those > things should be :) > > M >
<<attachment: output2~.zip>>
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
