On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 21:12 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
If you're playing with [readsf~] it's a bit harder. But you know when you start the file because you did bang [readsf~] at that time. So what I would do is to also bang a [vline~] at that point and let it go for a long time at the speed of your sample rate. See attached patch for the principle in action.
why doing it with expensive [vline~]? wouldn't be a [timer] as precise as [vline~]?
without having seen your patch, i'd propose something like:
[timer] | [* 44.1] <- or your SR/1000 | [int]
isn't the [timer]-version even more precise, when the [readsf~]is triggered by a [metro] or a [delay]? i mean, [vline~] has some kind of time-stamp handling, which [readsf~] hasn't afaik. so the result of [vline~]-measurement might be wrong by max. 64 samples, wouldn't it? tell me, if i am producing rubbish-theories.......
roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de