Yes, that's what I want, proper mono mode, with opt. auto glissando when 2+ notes are played.
Maybe it's a feature enhancement.
That's the abstraction I'm working on.
I'm trying to implement a 6-element linked list, with push/pop (front of list), shift/unshift (end of list), and delete... it's possible, but challenging. Lot of work.
On Sunday, May 15, 2016, Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com wrote:
[poly 1 0] means that until its note is released, all incoming notes
between onset and offset of the only voice's note should be completely invisible to it (that's what "one-voice polyphony with no voice stealing" should mean, I think). I don't think it should suddenly output the values of another note that happened to have been depressed and held in the meantime. I think what you're looking for is something different from the voice allocation in [poly]; you're looking more for assigning note priority in monophonic instruments. If I'm understanding you correctly, in order to do what you want with [poly], you would need to manage a very large internal polyphony to keep track of all the potential voices that could be being sustained when a voice receives a note off.
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 4:47 AM, William Huston williamahuston@gmail.com
wrote:
Sorry, Sourceforge is blocked for me.
I noticed that when using [poly 1 0] (note stealing off) when I would smash multi-note chords and release notes, sometimes I would be left pressing a note, yet the output of [poly] is silence.
I thought this might be a bug with the Windows MIDI driver, but it is definitely a bug with [poly], because with higher values of N, [poly N 0] knows the correct notes remaining.
See attached ZIP file. There is an HTML+image included which explains how to run the patch to demonstrate the issue.
The problem is there is a race condition. Lets say you smash the following chord: ("smash" means play all notes as simultaneously as possible)
24 26 28 29 31 33 [C-D-E-F-G-A]
Now the value which will be latched by [poly 1 0] is random. Let's say it is 28.
Now we release 33, 31,29 .... ALL GOOD! Now release 29. NOTE 24, 26, 28 are still depressed! [poly] doesn't know what to do here, and releases 28, ALL NOTES OFF.
Yet I am still holding down 3 notes.
The problem here is how do deal with this condition is ambiguous.
Should [poly] have "highest note value" priority? (and jump to 26) Or "lowest note value" priority? (and jump to 24) Or "order received" priority? (and jump to to the latest received of
[24,26])
Or maybe "reverse order received" priority? (and jump to the earliest
received of [24,26])
I would request a feature enhancement to provide some way to set the mode of poly (new inlet, message to inlet1, and/or starting
parameter) to chose one of these four modes.
In the meantime, I think I can code my own version of what I need as an
abstraction.
Thanks Miller and everyone who contributes here for such an awesome
tool/toy!
BH
-- May you, and all beings be happy and free from suffering :) -- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list