here's another example, there's a delay line with a size of 2048 samples, in patch with a block size of 2048, and the delay line is only able to delay a maximum of 64 samples
2015-09-22 14:07 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres <[email protected]>: > > > 2015-09-22 5:56 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi <[email protected]>: > >> You're totally right that the sentence >The delay time is always at >> least one sample *and at most the length of the delay line (specified by >> the delwrite~)*< is misleading. >> > > well, I still consider it to be a bug, it's not that it is misleading, it > is just not happening because of bug. There's nothing to prevent you from > reading a delay line to the maximum of what it was specified, if it can't, > then the object is buggy. If it has some limitation of a block less or so, > then there's a simple way to fix it, just add an extra block to the delay > line and make it work. Anyway, I filed this as a bug report yesterday, I > hope it gets checked upon soon, hopefully it'll work for the next Pd > release (0.47). > > > >> BTW: There's a funny issue when the blocksize of the [delread~] is >> smaller than the blocksize of the [delwrite~]: In that case the >> [delread~] is reading more often than the delay line itself is actually >> updated, so you get repetitions of blocks. >> > > Again, i think you can always code it to work around these issues. But in > this case, I don't see why not have them both in the same block. > > > >> > actually, I made some tests and it is the (buffersize - windows size + >> one block 0f 64 samples). >> Are you sure? >> > > yep, check the patch I sent, works on vanilla. > > cheers > > > >> *Gesendet:* Montag, 21. September 2015 um 23:05 Uhr >> *Von:* "Alexandre Torres Porres" <[email protected]> >> *An:* "Christof Ressi" <[email protected]>, "Miller Puckette" < >> [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> *Betreff:* Delay time limit bug (was: PVoc patch "bug"?) >> > the actual limit of the delay line is the buffersize minus the windows >> size >> >> actually, I made some tests and it is the (buffersize - windows size + >> one block 0f 64 samples). >> >> But anyway, this limitation is what I perceived, but I fail to see why >> any such limitation should happen. If the delay is "x" long, we should be >> able to read from "x" behind in time... if not, there's a bug in it. That's >> how I see it, and why I marked this issue as a potential bug. >> >> From the [vd~] help file, it says >> >> "The delay time is always at least one sample *and at most the length of >> the delay line (specified by the delwrite~)*" >> >> So if we can't read it at most from the specified delay line, there's a >> bug! >> >> > since the delay line is only written for every block and you want to >> read >> > the last N samples from the delay line, [vd~] simply clips to the >> > maximum reading index. >> >> Again, I fail to see a reason here. If such a limitation happens, maybe >> the object could be coded in a way that it allows an extra something to >> make it possible a total length read out. >> >> But I thought that maybe the order forcing of delay objects could be >> something to take into consideration. Well, I did the order forcing and >> many such tests, but nothing really changed! >> >> I have then the latest version attached. I'm copying miller here and also >> sending to the list. I'll also post this as a bug report. >> >> cheers >> >> >> 2015-09-21 16:45 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Hey, as I suspected, you are simply hitting the limit of the delay line. >>> You can test this on your own with the patch I've sent you. Note that the >>> actual limit of the delay line is the buffersize minus the windows size, >>> since the delay line is only written for every block and you want to read >>> the last N samples from the delay line. [vd~] simply clips to the maximum >>> reading index. Note that there isn't any phase difference anymore between >>> the two windows after both have exceeded the limit. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> *Gesendet:* Montag, 21. September 2015 um 19:53 Uhr >>> *Von:* "Alexandre Torres Porres" <[email protected]> >>> *An:* "Christof Ressi" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < >>> [email protected]> >>> *Betreff:* Re: Re: PVoc patch "bug"? >>> I've simplified the patch a lot so many things can be discarded. >>> >>> The window size shouldn't affect anything as the reading point in the >>> delay line is fixed. Now I don't have [vline~] or anything, just a steady >>> signal fed to [vd~], when we get close to the end of the delay line it just >>> gets ruined, and that's all that there is to it. There's no flaw in the >>> patch, nothing I didn't think of. It's really something very mysterious or >>> perhaps a bug. >>> >>> The patch is now simpler and also vanilla compatible. I tried it in the >>> new Pd Vanilla 0.46-7 and I got the same weird behaviour. >>> >>> Check attachment please >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> 2015-09-21 14:12 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> Well, I just think you're hitting the limit of the delay line. Your >>>> window size is 2048 samples, so inside the subpatch that's 2048/(44,1*4) = >>>> 11,6 ms. But one window is one hop size (2,9 ms) behind, therefore 11,6 ms >>>> + 2,9 ms = 14,5 ms and 1000 ms - 14,5 ms = 985,5 ms --> that's pretty much >>>> the limit you were experiencing. Hope that helps. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> *Gesendet:* Montag, 21. September 2015 um 18:27 Uhr >>>> *Von:* "Alexandre Torres Porres" <[email protected]> >>>> *An:* "Christof Ressi" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> *Betreff:* Re: PVoc patch "bug"? >>>> my patch has a little issue, I'm saying the delay line is 60000 ms >>>> (this is for the wrapping objects) when it's only 4000, but that is not a >>>> problem for what I'm asking here as the wrapping doesn't influence >>>> anything. It's just something weird that happens even without the wrapping. >>>> >>>> I wonder what's the principle you'd have for not using cyclone :) >>>> >>>> 2015-09-21 12:32 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> Hey, >>>>> >>>>> the first thing I noticed: your [delwrite~] is at 4000 ms, but [s >>>>> $0-buff_size] is still fed with 60000 ms... Is this on purpose? >>>>> The second thing: Even if you got the range for [pong~] right, my >>>>> guess is that this will create a sudden jump from the end of the delay >>>>> line >>>>> to the beginning. You'd need some kind of enveloping to mask the >>>>> discontinuity. Maybe this won't be noticeable if you pass the >>>>> 'problematic' >>>>> area quickly, but might sound terrible if you stay there. In your case, >>>>> however, it seems that the delay line is simply clipped since you've sent >>>>> a >>>>> wrong value to [pong~]. >>>>> This is just some remote diagnostics, though, since I don't use any >>>>> cyclone objects as a matter of principle :-D. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> PS: I didn't put this on the list on purpose, because it's only about >>>>> a specific patch and not something more general. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Gesendet:* Montag, 21. September 2015 um 06:48 Uhr >>>>> *Von:* "Alexandre Torres Porres" <[email protected]> >>>>> *An:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Christof Ressi" >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> *Betreff:* PVoc patch "bug"? >>>>> Hi there, still struggling with my circular buffer Phase Vocoder, now >>>>> I've found an issue that has no apparent reason. >>>>> >>>>> Check the attached patch please >>>>> >>>>> the speed is 100% and pitcnh shift is "0", so the signal from vline~ >>>>> stands still in one particular point in the buffer (read from [vd~]). >>>>> >>>>> buffer size is 4000 ms, into the PVoc subpatch is supposed to be >>>>> "1000" for it does oversampling with the overlap of 4 (we've discussed >>>>> this >>>>> before). Anyway, I'm using sampstoms~ and mstosamps~ to convert in a way >>>>> that works for the patch. >>>>> >>>>> The point is, when getting close to the end of the delay line, things >>>>> get ruined for no reason! The end of the buffer is 1000 ms, not 4000 ms as >>>>> pointed above. You can check my patch and see how that goes. >>>>> >>>>> If the reading point is at somewhere just after the buffer size less a >>>>> window size plus a hop size (around 985 ms) things get bad. >>>>> >>>>> I can't find a reason for that in a million years. Please help >>>>> >>>>> thanks >>>>> >>>> >
del-test.pd
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
