I made a lot of assumptions about Laus program there - but wouldn't a 5ms fade out and in cause a nasty 'drop out' ? A 10ms gap is certainly something you'd hear, and I guessed Lau was trying for a perfectly smooth join. (?)
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:51:39 -0500 "Kyle Klipowicz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am I missing something or wouldn't it be simplest to add a quick and dirty 5 > ms or so fade in/out envelope that follows the timing of the array triggers? > > ~Kyle > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Andy Farnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Lau, > > > > I guess you're building a beat concatenator so you have no > > room for introducing timing offsets. > > > > First, termminology - let's not call these "clips", I think > > discontinuities is a better word. > > > > Your first solution is similar to what is being discussed in another > > thread on dynamic delays - Millers "rendezvous" algorithm where > > the two segments are spliced via a DC offset introduced by a ramp. > > > > The second one really amounts to crossfading or short window > > average filter. Further, how can you > > be sure your detector won't have a false positive from a fast > > signal slew rate? > > > > If my assumption is right then for simplicity I suggest > > revising your constraints. A 64 sample crossfade will introduce > > negligable timing problems. > > > > > > -- > > Use the source > > > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] mailing list > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > -- > ----- > ------------ > ---- ----- > ---- -------- - ------ > http://perhapsidid.wordpress.com > http://myspace.com/kyleklipowicz > -- Use the source _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
