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?
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
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
Why not just use a phasor~ per rate~ and then have the frequency of all them controlled by the same number box?
.hc
On 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
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.atwrote:
Why not just use a phasor~ per rate~ and then have the frequency of all them controlled by the same number box?
.hc
On 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
Leaving out [rate~] should use less CPU since [rate~] doesn't have to do the analysis part, if I understand it correctly.
.hc
On 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?
.hc
On 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
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.
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.atwrote:
Leaving out [rate~] should use less CPU since [rate~] doesn't have to do the analysis part, if I understand it correctly.
.hc
On 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.atwrote:
Why not just use a phasor~ per rate~ and then have the frequency of all them controlled by the same number box?
.hc
On 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
On 06/12/12 15:31, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Leaving out [rate~] should use less CPU since [rate~] doesn't have to do the analysis part, if I understand it correctly.
If I understand correctly what rate~ does, the argument is actually a factor, so I thnk the frequency for the phasor~ has to be 1 / factor... So for example
[rate~ 1.5]
is [phasor~ 0.666667]
Lorenzo.
.hc
On 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 mailto: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? .hc On 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 <mailto:itensimon@gmail.com>> wrote: What are you trying to accomplish? On Dec 6, 2012 2:48 PM, "Alexandros Drymonitis" <adrcki@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at <mailto: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
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Lorenzo Sutton lorenzofsutton@gmail.comwrote:
On 06/12/12 15:31, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Leaving out [rate~] should use less CPU since [rate~] doesn't have to do the analysis part, if I understand it correctly.
If I understand correctly what rate~ does, the argument is actually a factor, so I thnk the frequency for the phasor~ has to be 1 / factor... So for example
[rate~ 1.5]
is [phasor~ 0.666667]
Lorenzo.
"rate~ accepts an input signal from a phasor~ and time scales it by a multiplier received as a float in its right inlet". This is what the help patch says. Although, in the oscilloscope of the patch it looks like it is divided indeed. Dunno..
.hc
On 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.atmailto: 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? .hc On Dec 6, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote: copy this patchhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=6P4Ezz9aWa8&feature=plcp<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P4Ezz9aWa8&feature=plcp> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Simon Iten <itensimon@gmail.com <mailto:itensimon@gmail.com>> wrote: What are you trying to accomplish? On Dec 6, 2012 2:48 PM, "Alexandros Drymonitis" <adrcki@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/**listinfo/pd-list<http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list> ______________________________**_________________ Pd-list@iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/**listinfo/pd-list<http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list>______________________________**_________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/** listinfo/pd-list http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
______________________________**_________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/** listinfo/pd-list http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Yes, but 1 * 1.5 should give 1.5 and not 0.666667. As you suggest, [rate~ 1.5] should give [phasor~ 0.666667], which in the case of multiplication shouldn't be true. But still, that how it looks like in the oscilloscope...
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:42 PM, i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
multiplying by 0.5 is the same as dividing by 2
On 06/12/12 14:57, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote:
copy this patch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P4Ezz9aWa8&feature=plcp
If I may suggest... I would try to observe and _listen_ to what the patch produces, and then try to re-produce it not necessarily making an exact copy, but your own personalised version which you think sounds great :)
Ciao, Lorenzo.
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Simon Iten <itensimon@gmail.com mailto:itensimon@gmail.com> wrote:
What are you trying to accomplish? On Dec 6, 2012 2:48 PM, "Alexandros Drymonitis" <adrcki@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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
somthing like this? cheers c
Le 06/12/2012 14:43, Alexandros Drymonitis a écrit :
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
Yup! That's super, thanks!
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Cyrille Henry ch@chnry.net wrote:
somthing like this? cheers c
Le 06/12/2012 14:43, Alexandros Drymonitis a écrit :
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 http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Alexandros Drymonitis -
Cyrille Henry -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
i go bananas -
Lorenzo Sutton -
Simon Iten