Hallo, Kim Taylor hat gesagt: // Kim Taylor wrote: > Actually, sorry- I thought I understood this but I've got a problem > with this method > > Considering the patch posted by Georg Holzmann (the same principle as > http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/techniques/latest/book-html/node121.html)- > Surely if the block size is default 64 samples, the delwrite atom will > take at least 64 samples to write to the delay line...
Not quite: The blocksize just specifies, how many samples [delwrite~] will write into the delay line during every block. The time it takes logically is zero: The full block is written into the delay line immediatly (that is: at the same time, delread~ reads it, see below). > So the delread (next in sequence) cannot read out the contents of > the delay line until AFTER this has happened? Yes, if you do the execution order right, the delread reads the delay buffer, after delwrite~ has written into it. That's the whole point of the order forcing! But as with the delwrite~, the reading happens "immediatly": delread~ will read a full block from the delay line, which means, it will read out exactly what delwrite~ has written into the buffer previously. As both writing and reading happens in the same sample block, you have no delay. In theory, that is. > I don't understand how a minimum delay of 1 sample can be achieved > (although I admit I have made it work in practice!!!) Actually I think, theoretically a minimum delay of zero samples could be achieved (although I admit I have not made it work in practice!!!) ;-) More thought needed here ... Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
