Hi Derek,

thanks for your answer, I´m already trying an implementation with coll, my problem is that I cannot store the notes in advance, being the piece in real time. so I´m trying to store in a coll the notes with an augmented distance between them, and then (with a certain delay, decided in advance), playing them back. I´ll send the patch to the list when it will be a bit better looking!

Regards,

Libero

On 7/10/07, Derek Holzer derek@umatic.nl wrote:

Is the ratio consistent? Or does it change frequently during the piece. My only experience with canon's is with one of Brian Eno's tape pieces using Pachelbel's Canon, where he feeds notes into a tape loop which can be played back at slower than real time. So, in the spirit of tape loops, and especially if the ratio is consistent, why not write your incoming notes into a circular table, which gets played back at a proportionate reduction of speed?

Sorry I don't have time to patch that idea up right now, but maybe it will be enough of a shift from your current line of thinking on the problem to get you moving in a new direction...

best, d.

Libero Mureddu wrote:

...

Hello,

I´m trying to implement a patch to play proportional canons in real time from a midi source. A proportional canon works in this way: if I play, let´s say, three notes at 200ms of speed, and if I decide that the proportion should be 2 times slower, the patch should playback the same three notes at 400ms speed.

I thought I could record the distance between notes with timer, and then send the time difference (multiplied by a certain factor), to pipe, but it seems that pipe cannot handle the change of delay time, if more than one change in delay has to be stored before playing back the previous.

Do you have any suggestion?

In other words, what I would like to do is to record and at the same time (or later) playing back at a slower speed.

Thanks a lot

Libero

Libero Mureddu Vanha Viertotie, 21 as 417 00350 Helsinki Finland http://webusers.siba.fi/~limuredd/ http://www.myspace.com/liberomureddu <

http://www.myspace.com/liberomureddu%3E

...

---

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->

http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

-- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 149: "Take a break"

Hallo, Libero Mureddu hat gesagt: // Libero Mureddu wrote:

Hi, here is a working example of the proportional canon patch. Now I have the following question: if I want to make this patch an abstraction, and use more instances of it, how to avoid duplications of the same "send", coll, etc?

I read the subpatch tutorial, but the mechanism is not really clear.

I don't know which tutorial you mean, but: subpatches are something completely different from abstractions, so a subpatch tutorial won't help you.

Subpatches are objects -- [pd] or [page] -- while abstractions are files: Abstractions have to be saved into their own file, then you can call them by their filename minus the .pd ending in another patch, also multiple times. When abstraction are used this way in another file, people often call various occurences of the same abstraction different "instances" of an abstraction.

In each instance of an abstraction and actually in every seperate patch file that you have opened, the special variable "$0" gets a unique value. (Note that "$0" can only be used in object names, not in message boxes.)

So to avoid duplicate names for s/r, you can use names with "$0" in your send/receive pairs:

| [s $0-local]

[r $0-local] |

This in practice is (almost) as local as a direct connection.

You can use the same approach for [table $0-local-array] or [catch~ $0-left]. For last year's versions of Pd (i.e. prior to 0.40) you have to start your name with $0 for this to work, while current 0.4x versions of Pd also allow $0 inside a name like [r pd-$0-name].

To get back to subpatches for a moment: $0 is only unique in whole patch *files* and in abstraction instances. If you use $0 in two subpatches, that live in the same file, they will have the *same* value for $0. You cannot create a sender that is local only in a subpatch with $0.

I don't know how [coll] deals with $0, I never use that object.

Ciao

Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__

Hi Derek,

Thanks, I forgot about your tutorial. I just had a memory about a detailed explanation somewhere... There it was!!!

Best regards,

Libero

On 7/11/07, Derek Holzer derek@umatic.nl wrote:

Dear Libero,

The short answer is to use a $1 variable when you want to name each abstraction (i.e. [myabstraction numberone], [myabstraction numbertwo], etc...), or use a $0 variable when you want to simply make a new instance and not worry about naming it (multiple instances of [myabstraction], where $0 will be replaced by a new random number which is unique to each abstraction).

I can post more about it later in if you're still confused... also check the tutorials I gave you in Helsinki, in particular 01.pd-control /04.subpatches_and_abstractions/04.abstractions_and_dollar_signs.pd (apologies to the rest of the list that I haven't published these yet... coming soon in coordination with the PD FLOSS Manual!)

best, d.

Libero Mureddu wrote:

...

Hi, here is a working example of the proportional canon patch. Now I have the following question: if I want to make this patch an abstraction, and use more instances of it, how to avoid duplications of the same "send", coll, etc?

I read the subpatch tutorial, but the mechanism is not really clear.

-- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 128: "Overtly resist change"