Nice demo Frank, what was the purpose of the [t3_line~] that Gerhard and Thomas wrote? Is it now deprecated in view of [vline~]? I assume [t3_delay] was a stopgap solution to this block quantize issue, or am I missing something else?
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:10:52 +0200 Frank Barknecht fbar@footils.org wrote:
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
If you would like a bang message when [1 300(-[line~] is complete then you merely have to say
[bang( |[t b b] | | [del 300] [1 300( | | [outlet done] [line~] | [outlet line]
Even though the evaluation goes right-left and depth first the bang appearing at [outlet done] happens at the **exact** logical time that [line~] is complete.
As Roman noted it is not exactly exact if you're starting your [line~] and [delay] from a clock-delayed message, because then [delay] will still keep logical time, while [line~] is quantized to 64 samples.
But in practice this generally isn't an issue: If such accuracy is required in an application (e.g. granular synthesis), nobody would (or should) use [line~] anyway, [vline~] is the line to go for here.
If one *really* wants get back the inaccurate block-quantized delays one's used to from Max, attached patch illustrates a possible approach using [bang~].
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__