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
pd-list@lists.iem.at - the Pure Data mailinglist https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/pd-list@lis...
To unsubscribe send an email to pd-list-leave@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.iem.at/__;!!Mih3wA!AyMADrihhYOo9nb...