On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 11:59 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: tim vets timvets@gmail.com; Pierre Massat pimassat@gmail.com; James Dunn james@4thharmonic.com; pd-list pd-list@iem.at Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:35 AM Subject: Re: [PD] stop sample playback when phasor~ reset?
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 14:00 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
From: tim vets timvets@gmail.com To: Pierre Massat pimassat@gmail.com; James Dunn
james@4thharmonic.com; pd-list pd-list@iem.at
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [PD] stop sample playback when phasor~ reset?
When you use phasor~, you normally already know how long it will take
for the sound to be finished playing (because you set its frequency to play it back at the proper speed)
Store the information about the sound loaded (or recorded) and use that
to stop the playback after one play duration.
[del <time>] | [t b b] | | [0( [0( [ | [phasor]
What's the benefit of this over a line~ based approach?
[line~] is inferior to [phasor~] in that it only starts a ramp on block boundaries. Using [vline~] seems to me most flexible in terms of sample playback as it can start a ramp even in-between samples.
That depends on how one uses [phasor~]. In the example above the initial ramp must start on a block boundary-- whatever is triggering [del <time>] must also send the relevent frequency to [phasor~] for playing the sound stored in the array. Those actions must happen with control objects, which means they will affect the signal objects at the beginning of the next block.
However, for the ramp at the end of playback [phasor~] as used above can produce a ramp that begins/ends in the middle of a block ( [vline~] too), whereas [line~] cannot. Of course I'm just talking about situations implied by the example above, where the user is just triggering events sporadically using control objects.
What do you mean by 'triggering events sporadically using control objects'? Aren't [delay] and [metro] also control objects? If those are generating the event, you have more precise timing than only block boundaries. We actually don't know what would be triggering the [del] in the above patch (or probably I missed it?).
Either way, the above patch would convert the precise timing to only block boundaries timing because the frequency inlet of [phasor~] only evaluates control messages on block boundaries.
Using [vline~ ], however, would actually use the precise timing of the event.
Neither [line~] nor [vline~] will trigger a ramp in the middle of the current block, so if you're rule is "IF sample playback THEN [vline~] > [line~]" there are probably times you're wasting cpu.
Sorry, if I am missing your point, but how do you know that [vline~ ] wouldn't trigger a ramp in the middle of block in this case?
Roman