[PD] bang~ =64 samples
hi, is there an alternative for bang~ that will work with blocksizes smaller than 64 samples? or is there a chance to fix bang~? marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] bang~ =64 samples
You can do it combining bang~ with sub-64-sample message delays. cheers M On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:05:46PM -0400, marius schebella wrote: hi, is there an alternative for bang~ that will work with blocksizes smaller than 64 samples? or is there a chance to fix bang~? marius. ___ 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
Re: [PD] bang~ =64 samples
hi miller, not exaclty sure what sub-64-sample message delays means? block~ 64 64? or 64 delays each 0.0226757369615 ms. will test this. marius. Miller Puckette wrote: You can do it combining bang~ with sub-64-sample message delays. cheers M On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:05:46PM -0400, marius schebella wrote: hi, is there an alternative for bang~ that will work with blocksizes smaller than 64 samples? or is there a chance to fix bang~? marius. ___ 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
Re: [PD] bang~ =64 samples
Bang~ goes off at 64-sample intervals (1.45 msec) - but for instance a 0.725 msec delay would sync a message to 32 sample into a 64 sample buffer. Of course you might need objects that can deal with messages on such a fine time grain. Tne only one I know of is vline~ (which is the one I use for this kind of thing.) cheers M On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:45:05PM -0400, marius schebella wrote: hi miller, not exaclty sure what sub-64-sample message delays means? block~ 64 64? or 64 delays each 0.0226757369615 ms. will test this. marius. Miller Puckette wrote: You can do it combining bang~ with sub-64-sample message delays. cheers M On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:05:46PM -0400, marius schebella wrote: hi, is there an alternative for bang~ that will work with blocksizes smaller than 64 samples? or is there a chance to fix bang~? marius. ___ 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
Re: [PD] bang~ =64 samples
...uhmm, negative. I created now a subpatch with the 64 delays, and get good timer measurements of 0.0226757 ms. but when I hook it up to sig~ the signal is still only updated every 64 samples. same btw with vline~. I was trying [$1 1.45( into line~, but that only a bad fake, and the ring modulator effect is still there... am I missing something? marius. Miller Puckette wrote: Bang~ goes off at 64-sample intervals (1.45 msec) - but for instance a 0.725 msec delay would sync a message to 32 sample into a 64 sample buffer. Of course you might need objects that can deal with messages on such a fine time grain. Tne only one I know of is vline~ (which is the one I use for this kind of thing.) cheers M On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:45:05PM -0400, marius schebella wrote: hi miller, not exaclty sure what sub-64-sample message delays means? block~ 64 64? or 64 delays each 0.0226757369615 ms. will test this. marius. Miller Puckette wrote: You can do it combining bang~ with sub-64-sample message delays. cheers M On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:05:46PM -0400, marius schebella wrote: hi, is there an alternative for bang~ that will work with blocksizes smaller than 64 samples? or is there a chance to fix bang~? marius. ___ 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
Re: [PD] bang~ =64 samples
using tables now, coming closer! m. marius schebella wrote: ...uhmm, negative. I created now a subpatch with the 64 delays, and get good timer measurements of 0.0226757 ms. but when I hook it up to sig~ the signal is still only updated every 64 samples. same btw with vline~. I was trying [$1 1.45( into line~, but that only a bad fake, and the ring modulator effect is still there... am I missing something? marius. Miller Puckette wrote: Bang~ goes off at 64-sample intervals (1.45 msec) - but for instance a 0.725 msec delay would sync a message to 32 sample into a 64 sample buffer. Of course you might need objects that can deal with messages on such a fine time grain. Tne only one I know of is vline~ (which is the one I use for this kind of thing.) cheers M On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:45:05PM -0400, marius schebella wrote: hi miller, not exaclty sure what sub-64-sample message delays means? block~ 64 64? or 64 delays each 0.0226757369615 ms. will test this. marius. Miller Puckette wrote: You can do it combining bang~ with sub-64-sample message delays. cheers M On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:05:46PM -0400, marius schebella wrote: hi, is there an alternative for bang~ that will work with blocksizes smaller than 64 samples? or is there a chance to fix bang~? marius. ___ 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
