This is doable, actually, but not easy. [delay] and [vline~] both have subsample accuracy. It would be substantially easier if you could preprocess and deliver the sequence as one big message dump to [vline~]. If you loaded all of the files into one array (up to about 6:20 of audio at 44100) and kept tabs on where each one started and how long it was in samples and milliseconds, you could then feed [vline~] into [tabread~] to play the relevant chunk of the array. If you needed to be able to transpose them, that's a little harder because depending on how long the table was, you'd need to work in the message onset to [tabread4~]'s right inlet or face index degradation.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Samuel Burt <composer.samuel.b...@gmail.com > wrote: > David, > > One thing I attempted and couldn't find a solution for was the following, > mostly owing to the limitation of interfacing with a 64 sample block size. > > I wanted to have a directory of hundreds of audio recordings. Each one > would be a single wavelength from an interesting sound, like a bass > clarinet, marimba, harpsichord, tambourine, etc. Each would begin and end > at a zero crossing so you could chain them together to make complex > timbres. They could be chained in sequence, randomized, or loaded in > meta-data-matched chunks. I ran into a problem figuring out how to trigger > the next sound based on the ending of the last sound in a sample accurate > way. Sound file loading or even buffer playback triggering waits until the > start of the next block size before it updates. If you have a waveform that > lasts 205 samples (64+64+64+13), you have a gap of 51 silent samples before > the next waveform would start. Not only do you not get the continuous sound > you want, this winds up creating a periodic pattern with a frequency of 689 > Hz (44100/64). > > David, I like your idea "what (if anything) someone tried to do in Pd, but > couldn't given its limitations". I think this could be a wonderful > challenge if we could have a monthly thread like this where the best minds > among us come up with solutions to some of the hardest conceptual > challenges in Pd. > > I'm still struggling with loading dozens of files, audio dropouts, and > other similar problems. Someone else expressed frustration about Pd's > single-threaded status. I too have feared upgrading my computer based on > the limitations of current multicore processors (although realistically I > think we can all look at the "turbo-boost" level or whatever Intel calls it > to determine where our processor might run with a demanding patch. I > understand the fact that you can't run your audio process on multiple > cores, because it is a linear process. It would be great if the GUI could > run on a second core, a process that loads audio into memory could run on > third core, while GEM could automatically run on a fourth core. I don't > have any concept of how feasible that would be, though. Does the GUI in > pd-l2orc run on a separate core? > > Sam > > > > > > >> Message: 4 >> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:01:06 -0800 >> From: david medine <dmed...@ucsd.edu> >> >> One thing I'd be interested in knowing about is what (if anything) >> someone tried to do in Pd, but couldn't given its limitations (apart >> from look/feel/convenience issues). >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list