sure, I'm aware of how to do it, and I prefer delays. But I was just really wondering if there was a good reason for it, maybe hoping to a day that comes and allows it :)
cheers 2016-02-26 0:38 GMT-03:00 Claude Heiland-Allen <[email protected]>: > On 26/02/16 03:21, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: > >> howdy, is there any particularly good reason why [s~]/[r~] must run at >> only >> 64 block sizes? >> >> if the issue is that they may have conflicting/different sizes between >> them, why not give the same error as you get now for blocks other than 64? >> >> "receive~ x: vector size mismatch >> sigsend x: unexpected vector size" >> >> It'd be really convenient for feedback loops >> > > if you want something that works right now, tabsend~ and tabreceive~ don't > have any restriction about table size must be equal to block size must be > equal to 64 > > see attached example of a single self-modulating fm oscillator with single > sample feedback (block~ 1) > > > Claude > -- > http://mathr.co.uk > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
