Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
it was just an idea... that way you will not have the problem of the one block delay of delread~.
First: If you sort the delread~ before the delwrite~ you will always have one block of delay.
But anyway: Automatic sorting of delread/delwrite doesn't solve the problem you talk about: For feedback delays you want to have the delread before the delwrite, for non-feedback delay lines you want to the delwrite before the delread.
Again, please read the delay chapter in Miller's book for a detailed explanation: http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/techniques/latest/book-html/node120.html
Ciao
Frank Barknecht
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
[[btw. can't we use that method to have all delread~ saved and loaded at the beginning of a patch?]]
Why t.h. would you want that?!?
Ciao
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list