Hi list,
I'm controlling tabread4~ with a phasor~ but don't want my samples to loop (most of the time). What's the best way to detect a phasor~'s reset? ( in both directions - I'm playing the samples forwards and backwards). I've looked at edge~ and samphold~ triggered by a bang~ but it seems quite tricky.
thanks
James
I generally use threshold~, though it's quite tricky too...
Pierre
2011/9/19 James Dunn james@4thharmonic.com
Hi list,
I'm controlling tabread4~ with a phasor~ but don't want my samples to loop (most of the time). What's the best way to detect a phasor~'s reset? ( in both directions - I'm playing the samples forwards and backwards). I've looked at edge~ and samphold~ triggered by a bang~ but it seems quite tricky.
thanks
James
______________________________**_________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/** listinfo/pd-list http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
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]
You get <time> ms is from [soundfiler]--[/ 44.1], or the length of your table times 44.1. (assuming your sound runs at 44.1 kHz) Probably best to put a [hip~ 5] after that, in case the first sample of your table is not 0.
Tim
2011/9/19 Pierre Massat pimassat@gmail.com
I generally use threshold~, though it's quite tricky too...
Pierre
2011/9/19 James Dunn james@4thharmonic.com
Hi list,
I'm controlling tabread4~ with a phasor~ but don't want my samples to loop (most of the time). What's the best way to detect a phasor~'s reset? ( in both directions - I'm playing the samples forwards and backwards). I've looked at edge~ and samphold~ triggered by a bang~ but it seems quite tricky.
thanks
James
______________________________**_________________ 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
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?
-Jonathan
You get <time> ms is from [soundfiler]--[/ 44.1], or the length of your table times 44.1. (assuming your sound runs at 44.1 kHz) Probably best to put a [hip~ 5] after that, in case the first sample of your table is not 0.
Tim
2011/9/19 Pierre Massat pimassat@gmail.com
I generally use threshold~, though it's quite tricky too...
Pierre
2011/9/19 James Dunn james@4thharmonic.com
Hi list,
I'm controlling tabread4~ with a phasor~ but don't want my samples to loop (most of the time). What's the best way to detect a phasor~'s reset? ( in both directions - I'm playing the samples forwards and backwards). I've looked at edge~ and samphold~ triggered by a bang~ but it seems quite tricky.
thanks
James
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
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
2011/9/19 Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
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?
It depends what you want to do, i guess, for doing granular synthesis and the like, I'd use phasor~ rather than line~. The benefit being that fast repetition is easier ( try [metro 0.5] ...). Tim
-Jonathan
You get <time> ms is from [soundfiler]--[/ 44.1], or the length of your
table times 44.1. (assuming your sound runs at 44.1 kHz)
Probably best to put a [hip~ 5] after that, in case the first sample of
your table is not 0.
Tim
2011/9/19 Pierre Massat pimassat@gmail.com
I generally use threshold~, though it's quite tricky too...
Pierre
2011/9/19 James Dunn james@4thharmonic.com
Hi list,
I'm controlling tabread4~ with a phasor~ but don't want my samples to
loop (most of the time). What's the best way to detect a phasor~'s reset? ( in both directions - I'm playing the samples forwards and backwards). I've looked at edge~ and samphold~ triggered by a bang~ but it seems quite tricky.
thanks
James
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
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
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.
Using [threshold~] or any other method to detect the reset of [phasor~] is not feasible, because of two reasons:
- [threshold] (but also [snapshot~]) output the bang only at block
bounaries, so the detection is not very precise
- Whenever the the audio domain (a signal) causes an event in the
message domain (that's what [threshold~] and [snapshot~] are for), the event is at least one block late.
There is still one advantage of [phasor~] over [vline~]: The speed of the [phasor~] can be changed at signal rate, so one can create continuous pitch changes when playing the sample. That's not possible with [vline~].
Roman
I m curious to know which object you would recommend instead of threshold~ (the delay way is obviously not feasible as soon as you need to change the speed of phasor~ during palyback).
Pierre
2011/9/20 Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com
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.
Using [threshold~] or any other method to detect the reset of [phasor~] is not feasible, because of two reasons:
- [threshold] (but also [snapshot~]) output the bang only at block
bounaries, so the detection is not very precise
- Whenever the the audio domain (a signal) causes an event in the
message domain (that's what [threshold~] and [snapshot~] are for), the event is at least one block late.
There is still one advantage of [phasor~] over [vline~]: The speed of the [phasor~] can be changed at signal rate, so one can create continuous pitch changes when playing the sample. That's not possible with [vline~].
Roman
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 09:43 +0200, Pierre Massat wrote:
I m curious to know which object you would recommend instead of threshold~ (the delay way is obviously not feasible as soon as you need to change the speed of phasor~ during palyback).
Yeah, [threshold~] seems feasible, but this approach suffers from a few issues. As I said before, the bang comes only on block boundaries and is at least one block late, so it's not very precise. Also, a [phasor~] probably never reaches exactly 1 (or 0) and it is less likely the higher the frequency is. So you would need values like 0.001 or 0.999 for the [threshold~] which again makes it a bit more imprecise.
You can also use the [vline~] approach and change the speed in the middle of the playback, though it needs a bit of patching to accomplish that. You need a delay, that is triggered at the time of the speed change. The delay value can be used to calculate the current position of the play head. Then you can use that value as a start point for a new message to [vline~].
Roman
2011/9/20 Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com 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. Using [threshold~] or any other method to detect the reset of [phasor~] is not feasible, because of two reasons: * [threshold] (but also [snapshot~]) output the bang only at block bounaries, so the detection is not very precise * Whenever the the audio domain (a signal) causes an event in the message domain (that's what [threshold~] and [snapshot~] are for), the event is at least one block late. There is still one advantage of [phasor~] over [vline~]: The speed of the [phasor~] can be changed at signal rate, so one can create continuous pitch changes when playing the sample. That's not possible with [vline~]. Roman
Yeah, a threshold~ set to 1 is never triggered (or very rarely). So there's no perfect answer to the question it seems...
Pierre
2011/9/20 Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 09:43 +0200, Pierre Massat wrote:
I m curious to know which object you would recommend instead of threshold~ (the delay way is obviously not feasible as soon as you need to change the speed of phasor~ during palyback).
Yeah, [threshold~] seems feasible, but this approach suffers from a few issues. As I said before, the bang comes only on block boundaries and is at least one block late, so it's not very precise. Also, a [phasor~] probably never reaches exactly 1 (or 0) and it is less likely the higher the frequency is. So you would need values like 0.001 or 0.999 for the [threshold~] which again makes it a bit more imprecise.
You can also use the [vline~] approach and change the speed in the middle of the playback, though it needs a bit of patching to accomplish that. You need a delay, that is triggered at the time of the speed change. The delay value can be used to calculate the current position of the play head. Then you can use that value as a start point for a new message to [vline~].
Roman
2011/9/20 Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com 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. Using [threshold~] or any other method to detect the reset of [phasor~] is not feasible, because of two reasons: * [threshold] (but also [snapshot~]) output the bang only at block bounaries, so the detection is not very precise * Whenever the the audio domain (a signal) causes an event in the message domain (that's what [threshold~] and [snapshot~] are for), the event is at least one block late. There is still one advantage of [phasor~] over [vline~]: The speed of the [phasor~] can be changed at signal rate, so one can create continuous pitch changes when playing the sample. That's not possible with [vline~]. Roman
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 10:06 +0200, Pierre Massat wrote:
Yeah, a threshold~ set to 1 is never triggered (or very rarely). So there's no perfect answer to the question it seems...
Hm... What do you expect the perfect answer to be? The [vline~] approach works pretty well. What do you miss?
Roman
----- 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. 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.
The first paragraph of 3.audio.examples/C04.control.to.signal.pd spells it out pretty well.
-Jonathan
Using [threshold~] or any other method to detect the reset of [phasor~] is not feasible, because of two reasons:
- [threshold] (but also [snapshot~]) output the bang only at block
bounaries, so the detection is not very precise
- Whenever the the audio domain (a signal) causes an event in the
message domain (that's what [threshold~] and [snapshot~] are for), the event is at least one block late.
There is still one advantage of [phasor~] over [vline~]: The speed of the [phasor~] can be changed at signal rate, so one can create continuous pitch changes when playing the sample. That's not possible with [vline~].
Roman
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
----- Original Message -----
From: Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [PD] stop sample playback when phasor~ reset?
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?
I didn't write that [vline~] cannot trigger a ramp in the middle of a block-- it obviously can. I wrote that neither object can start a ramp in the middle of the current block. In fact, [line~] will almost always trigger sooner than [vline~], because [line~] starts the ramp immediately at the next block, and [vline~] at minimum will be delayed exactly one block.
I have an example patch that shows this but for some reason I can't attach it in Yahoo mail. But just make a simple amplitude envelop inside a subpatch with a large blocksize (greater than one second will do), then try triggering your envelope using [vline~].
-Jonathan
Roman
that sounds like a re-blocking delay, rather than anything to do with vline~
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [PD] stop sample playback when phasor~ reset?
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?
I didn't write that [vline~] cannot trigger a ramp in the middle of a block-- it obviously can. I wrote that neither object can start a ramp in the middle of the current block. In fact, [line~] will almost always trigger sooner than [vline~], because [line~] starts the ramp immediately at the next block, and [vline~] at minimum will be delayed exactly one block.
I have an example patch that shows this but for some reason I can't attach it in Yahoo mail. But just make a simple amplitude envelop inside a subpatch with a large blocksize (greater than one second will do), then try triggering your envelope using [vline~].
-Jonathan
Roman
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
From: hardoff goes bananas hard.off@gmail.com To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com; pd-list pd-list@iem.at Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [PD] stop sample playback when phasor~ reset?
that sounds like a re-blocking delay, rather than anything to do with vline~
I'm not sure how to measure it without changing the blocksize to make
the response time obvious. If anyone has a better idea for an example,
please post it.
See:
http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/techniques/latest/book-html/node43.html#fig03.04
Notice that for all three examples of the conversion, the first time value for the
control event is 2, but the earliesttime this event is reflected in the
audio signal is at time value 4, which corresponds with signal index 0--
that's in part A, the "fast as possible" method. This corresponds to the way
[line~] works, and that's as fast as you can possibly go-- updating the value
at the very beginning of the next block.
Parts B and C describe the type of sample accuracy you can get with [vline~],
but notice that both examples actually start at time 6-- signal indexes 0 and 1
correspond to the values at time 0 and 1, and so signal index 2 coincides with
the value from the previous block at time 2. That's why the 1st method is
called "fast as possible".
That's why if you build a simple attack/release envelope in a subpatch with a
large blocksize (greater than 1 sec), if you use [line~] you'll notice that the
envelope starts/stops at various intervals after you trigger it (depending on
how close the triggering is to the end of the current block being heard). With
[vline~], you get a constant time interval between triggering and hearing the
event. As in the table above, that constant time interval corresponds exactly to however long it takes to output one block of audio.
Hopefully that's how it really works, I get kind of confused when dealing with
this aspect of Pd. :)
-Jonathan
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [PD] stop sample playback when phasor~ reset?
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?
I didn't write that [vline~] cannot trigger a ramp in the middle of a block-- it obviously can. I wrote that neither object can start a ramp in the middle of the current block. In fact, [line~] will almost always trigger sooner than [vline~], because [line~] starts the ramp immediately at the next block, and [vline~] at minimum will be delayed exactly one block.
I have an example patch that shows this but for some reason I can't attach it in Yahoo mail. But just make a simple amplitude envelop inside a subpatch with a large blocksize (greater than one second will do), then try triggering your envelope using [vline~].
-Jonathan
Roman
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2011-09-19 20:33, James Dunn wrote:
backwards). I've looked at edge~ and samphold~ triggered by a bang~ but
what's wrong with [samphold~]? (though i don't understand what you need [bang~] for...)
see attached patch.
fmgadr IOhannes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2011-09-20 10:06, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2011-09-19 20:33, James Dunn wrote:
backwards). I've looked at edge~ and samphold~ triggered by a bang~ but
what's wrong with [samphold~]? (though i don't understand what you need [bang~] for...)
and if you worry about playing backward, then you should simply modify the output of phasor~ after the stop logic, not before.
ftgamsd IOhannes
Hi James,
On 19/09/2011 20:33, James Dunn wrote:
Hi list,
I'm controlling tabread4~ with a phasor~ but don't want my samples to loop (most of the time). What's the best way to detect a phasor~'s reset? ( in both directions - I'm playing the samples forwards and backwards). I've looked at edge~ and samphold~ triggered by a bang~ but it seems quite tricky.
After all the debate... I think it would help if you gave a little background on what you are trying to achieve and some further info :-) For example: time magnitude of the samples' playback (seconds, 100-1000 ms, 0-20 ms?)... What's your foreseen CPU-resources budget?
"The best way" much depends on what your final goal is. E.g. as someone suggested might get away with [(v)line~], but that has its shortcomings, same goes with the other suggestions.
Lorenzo.
thanks
James
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Thanks for all the replies. What I'm trying to do is make an abstraction in which I can load a soundfile (mono, 44100) which are all between about 2-6 mins in length. I have been using phasor~ because I want to play the files forwards and backwards and change slowly between the two. I also want to be able to pause and seek within the file using a slider. The main issue I'm having is catching the end of the phasor~ - either when it's going forwards or backwards. I've attached my patch.
thanks
James
Quoth Lorenzo Sutton, on 20/09/2011 10:56:
Hi James,
On 19/09/2011 20:33, James Dunn wrote:
Hi list,
I'm controlling tabread4~ with a phasor~ but don't want my samples to loop (most of the time). What's the best way to detect a phasor~'s reset? ( in both directions - I'm playing the samples forwards and backwards). I've looked at edge~ and samphold~ triggered by a bang~ but it seems quite tricky.
After all the debate... I think it would help if you gave a little background on what you are trying to achieve and some further info :-) For example: time magnitude of the samples' playback (seconds, 100-1000 ms, 0-20 ms?)... What's your foreseen CPU-resources budget?
"The best way" much depends on what your final goal is. E.g. as someone suggested might get away with [(v)line~], but that has its shortcomings, same goes with the other suggestions.
Lorenzo.
thanks
James
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
check this thread:
http://puredata.hurleur.com/sujet-6194-sample-played-automated-varying-speed...
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, James Dunn james@4thharmonic.com wrote:
Thanks for all the replies. What I'm trying to do is make an abstraction in which I can load a soundfile (mono, 44100) which are all between about 2-6 mins in length. I have been using phasor~ because I want to play the files forwards and backwards and change slowly between the two. I also want to be able to pause and seek within the file using a slider. The main issue I'm having is catching the end of the phasor~ - either when it's going forwards or backwards. I've attached my patch.
thanks
James
Quoth Lorenzo Sutton, on 20/09/2011 10:56:
Hi James,
On 19/09/2011 20:33, James Dunn wrote:
Hi list,
I'm controlling tabread4~ with a phasor~ but don't want my samples to loop (most of the time). What's the best way to detect a phasor~'s reset? ( in both directions - I'm playing the samples forwards and backwards). I've looked at edge~ and samphold~ triggered by a bang~ but it seems quite tricky.
After all the debate... I think it would help if you gave a little background on what you are trying to achieve and some further info :-) For example: time magnitude of the samples' playback (seconds, 100-1000 ms, 0-20 ms?)... What's your foreseen CPU-resources budget?
"The best way" much depends on what your final goal is. E.g. as someone suggested might get away with [(v)line~], but that has its shortcomings, same goes with the other suggestions.
Lorenzo.
thanks
James
______________________________**_________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/**listinfo/pd-listhttp://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
-
hardoff goes bananas -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
James Dunn -
Jonathan Wilkes -
Lorenzo Sutton -
Pierre Massat -
Roman Haefeli -
tim vets