On Dec 11, 2006, at 8:38 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote:
the attached patch shows that the subpatch is [switch~]ed off too
early,
but not [switch~]ed on too late.
So for tight timing switching on has to be done at least one
block *in
advance*.
if i interprete correctly, what your patch is telling me, then one
would
have to switch *off* one block *later*. it wouldn't be necessary
to know
in advance, when to switch on, though. it seems like it is enough
to add
1.5ms to each [delay] that schedules the switch-off-messages.
Ah, yes, you're right: I didn't interpret the patch correctly.
Attached is another version which allows to test different delay times
and also lets you compare a switched off with a non-switched signal.
It shows, that timing is indeed no problem when switching off
subpatches, which is good news to me.
There could be a number of idle voices that are switched on to
prevent this. So you could specify, say 5 voices always ready, then
whenever one voice starts playing, it also turns on another idle voice.
This would be harder to implement, but would be a nicer outcome than
a hard-coded 1.5 ms delay.
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to
realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either
change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams
_______________________________________________
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
