I've put an example here so you can hear that they are not the same
These differences are important. [rzero~] and [delwrite~] methods come out louder and with apparently less dynamics. Using [z~] and [fexpr~] I get much closer results to [delta~], more detail in the poured water sound. As I said I needed an _EXACT_ replacement for [delta~] for other patches too, which are much more sensitive to the differences. (so this is all about how it behaves in practice not in theory :) I'm really not sure why this happens. Suppose I should hook them up to a graph and read sample by sample to see what's really going on. But, it doesn't help me because without changing the source the fact is [delta~] is the same as [z~] [z~] is as good as [fexpr~] [rzero~ 1] and [delwrite~] are not the same Unless... If you hear no difference it could be an architecture thing... Tell me what machines you're running on, I wonder if that has anything to do with it? cheers, Andy On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:47:44 +0100 Frank Barknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hallo, > Miller Puckette hat gesagt: // Miller Puckette wrote: > > > If I'm doing it for myself, I run sig~ into rzero~ 1. > > For all I know, [rzero~ 1] is the same as [delta~]: Both compute the > difference between the current and the previous sample. Or am I > missing something? Some time ago I added this to the CVS (now SVN) as > abstractions/purepd/delta~.pd > > Ciao > -- > Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__ > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Use the source
pour-delta-problem.tar.gz
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
