Nice demo Frank, what was the purpose of the [t3_line~] that Gerhard and Thomas wrote? Is it now deprecated in view of [vline~]? I assume [t3_delay] was a stopgap solution to this block quantize issue, or am I missing something else?
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:10:52 +0200 Frank Barknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hallo, > Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote: > > > If you would like a bang message when [1 300(-[line~] is complete then you > > merely > > have to say > > > > [bang( > > | > > [t b b] > > | | > > [del 300] [1 300( > > | | > > [outlet done] [line~] > > | > > [outlet line] > > > > Even though the evaluation goes right-left and depth first the bang > > appearing > > at [outlet done] happens at the **exact** logical time that [line~] is > > complete. > > As Roman noted it is not exactly exact if you're starting your [line~] > and [delay] from a clock-delayed message, because then [delay] will > still keep logical time, while [line~] is quantized to 64 samples. > > But in practice this generally isn't an issue: If such accuracy is > required in an application (e.g. granular synthesis), nobody would > (or should) use [line~] anyway, [vline~] is the line to go for here. > > If one *really* wants get back the inaccurate block-quantized delays > one's used to from Max, attached patch illustrates a possible approach > using [bang~]. > > Ciao > -- > Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__ > -- Use the source _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
