Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote: > it was just an idea... that way you will not have the problem of the one > block delay of delread~.
First: If you sort the delread~ before the delwrite~ you will always have one block of delay. But anyway: Automatic sorting of delread/delwrite doesn't solve the problem you talk about: For feedback delays you want to have the delread before the delwrite, for non-feedback delay lines you want to the delwrite before the delread. Again, please read the delay chapter in Miller's book for a detailed explanation: http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/techniques/latest/book-html/node120.html Ciao -- Frank Barknecht > Frank Barknecht wrote: > > Hallo, > > marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote: > > > >> [[btw. can't we use that method to have all delread~ > >> saved and loaded at the beginning of a patch?]] > > > > Why t.h. would you want that?!? > > > > Ciao > > > _______________________________________________ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__ _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list