Hi Miller,
Thanks for your quick answer and sorry for the noise, I posted too fast.
I wasn't seeing the obvious reason : of course I should have used
[tabread4~] which I've always been using before !
Silly me ...
Best,
Joseph
Le 21/07/2025 à 15:54, pd-list-request(a)lists.iem.at a écrit :
> Hi Joseph -
>
> There's no resampling in tabread~, but if you're using line~ to drive it
> (for instance, via the
> messages 0, 1000 44100) - well then, if the patch is running at a
> different sample rate
> that will cause brutal, non-interpolating resampling. So it could be
> simply that you're
> running the patch for the first time at a different sample rate than it
> ran in before.
>
> If you want the patch to give reasonable results at any sample rate,
> you'll have to
> move to an interpolating lookup such as tabread4~. In this way you can
> use the same
> (0, 1000 44100) type message to line~ and get the same pitch and
> duration of output
> as before - with a cleaner interpolating algorithm.
>
> cheers
> Miller
>
> On 7/21/25 3:44 PM, Joseph Larralde wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I was just patching a small piano sampler with 0.55-2 and noticed that
>> [tabread~] seems to be doing some internal resampling of the array it
>> refers to to match pd's samplerate without transposing the sound.
>> I tested back to 0.52 and it is still doing it.
>> I could swear I always took care of correcting the sample rate myself
>> in abstractions, but I have an external that does a similar thing so I
>> find it an appreciable feature.
>> However, the resampling sounds very cheap, like linear interpolation
>> or drop-sample : I notice strong artifacts with piano samples.
>> Is this intended or could it come from my system (Pd 0.55-2 on M3
>> Ventura 13.5) ?
>> Has anyone expreienced this behaviour before ?
>> Joseph