On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 04:39 +0000, padawan12 wrote:
If I understood Erics paper correctly [samm~] allows you to specify which sample of a block is set consistently, if you like a periodic version of [dirac~]. That's surely useful if you want to do somthing in the signal domain like convolution with a impulse train.
What I couldn't figure, is this really equivilent to
[phasor~ 0.0173474647] very accurate signal phasor
hehe, i think the number format used in pd doesn't allow such a high accuracy ;-)
| [>=~ 0.9999999999999] "floated" 1.0 so we get an equivilence
which should give a single sample set on the top of each phasor cycle. But I seem to remember this not working properly for some reason.
not each edge of a signal generated by [phasor~] lies exactly on 1 or 0 because of the grid introduced by the samplingrate. see attached patch.
roman
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:53:52 +0100 Frank Barknecht fbar@footils.org wrote:
Hallo, schiemer@uow.edu.au hat gesagt: // schiemer@uow.edu.au wrote:
If you're worried by metro's irregularity then you should use Eric Lyons' samm~ (sample accurate multiple metronomes). This is described in http://www.sarc.qub.ac.uk/~elyon/LyonPapers/SampleAccurate-Lyon-ICMC2006.pdf
Note that samm~ is almost exactly as sample-accurate as Pd's metro. I tried to illustrate this in attached patch. samm~ however is also available for Max, where the metro according to Eric's paper is not as accurate as the one in Pd, so if you need to move patches between both systems, samm~ is a good choice. Of course Eric's system has some convenient extensions to generate polyrhythms etc., but timing alone IMO is no reason to exchange [metro] with [samm~] on Pd.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list