yep, same here. > On 16 Oct 2017, at 01:29, hans w. koch <hansw.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > sorry to be dense..how´s that supposed to work? > trying to recreate the ascii patch doesn´t yield aynthing here except 0 > > :-( > > hans > >> Am 15.10.2017 um 19:59 schrieb IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoel...@iem.at>: >> >> On 10/14/2017 10:51 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: >>> no, I mean Pd's "global" sample rate, not an audio file's rate >> >> well, my answer was specifically about the "global" sample rate, not >> about audio files. >> >> if you are running Pd at 44.1kHz, then the following prints out "44100", >> even if run in an up- or downsampled subpatch: >> >> ~~~ >> [write -nframes 0 . foo( >> | >> [soundfiler] >> [t f] >> [print] >> ~~~ >> >> which i think is what you asked for. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
