Well, I guess that would do as well, didn't think very thoroughly I guess. Still it doesn't sound the same with either versions of [rate~] when I put the patch together.
Anyway, thanks a lot.
Leaving out [rate~] should use less CPU since [rate~] doesn't have to do the analysis part, if I understand it correctly.
.hcOn 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> wrote:Why not just use a phasor~ per rate~ and then have the frequency of all them controlled by the same number box?
.hcOn 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> wrote:
What are you trying to accomplish?
On Dec 6, 2012 2:48 PM, "Alexandros Drymonitis" <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 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