Re: [PD] Max's [rate~] implementation...

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

Leaving out [rate~] should use less CPU since [rate~] doesn't have to do the analysis part, if I understand it correctly.

phasors.pd
Description: Binary data

.hc On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote: Don't think I really follow. Each [rate~] actually outputs a [phasor~] with a different frequency (different frequency ratio), all driven by the same [phasor~]. How can you send a value from one number box to all [phasor~]s? On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> wrote: Why not just use a phasor~ per rate~ and then have the frequency of all them controlled by the same number box? .hc On Dec 6, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote: copy this patch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P4Ezz9aWa8&feature=plcp On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Simon Iten <itensi...@gmail.com> wrote: What are you trying to accomplish? On Dec 6, 2012 2:48 PM, "Alexandros Drymonitis" <adr...@gmail.com> wrote: How can one implement Max's [rate~] in Pd? [rate~] takes a signal from a [phasor~] and according to its argument it scales the frequency (roughly speaking). So [phasor~ 1] | [rate~ 1.5] will actually give a [phasor~ 1.5]. I thought of [wrap] but that won't do the trick with non-integers. Any ideas? _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list