On 06/12/12 15:31, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Leaving out [rate~] should use less CPU since [rate~] doesn't have to do the analysis part, if I understand it correctly.
If I understand correctly what rate~ does, the argument is actually a factor, so I thnk the frequency for the phasor~ has to be 1 / factor... So for example
[rate~ 1.5]
is [phasor~ 0.666667]
Lorenzo.
.hc
On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote:
Don't think I really follow. Each [rate~] actually outputs a [phasor~] with a different frequency (different frequency ratio), all driven by the same [phasor~]. How can you send a value from one number box to all [phasor~]s?
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans@at.or.at mailto:hans@at.or.at> wrote:
Why not just use a phasor~ per rate~ and then have the frequency of all them controlled by the same number box? .hc On Dec 6, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote:copy this patch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P4Ezz9aWa8&feature=plcp On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Simon Iten <itensimon@gmail.com <mailto:itensimon@gmail.com>> wrote: What are you trying to accomplish? On Dec 6, 2012 2:48 PM, "Alexandros Drymonitis" <adrcki@gmail.com <mailto:adrcki@gmail.com>> wrote: How can one implement Max's [rate~] in Pd? [rate~] takes a signal from a [phasor~] and according to its argument it scales the frequency (roughly speaking). So [phasor~ 1] | [rate~ 1.5] will actually give a [phasor~ 1.5]. I thought of [wrap] but that won't do the trick with non-integers. Any ideas? _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at <mailto: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