Sorry,

forgot ta add [change -1] after the [i].

I thought this was meant to be used with a MIDI signal - maybe I got that
wrong?


Ingo



> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: pd-list-boun...@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-boun...@iem.at] Im Auftrag von
> Roman Haefeli
> Gesendet: Montag, 24. Februar 2014 10:34
> An: pd-list@iem.at
> Betreff: Re: [PD] smooth random numbers
> 
> On Sun, 2014-02-23 at 04:20 +0100, Ingo wrote:
> > Starting from Roman's patch I would probably do it like the attached
> patch.
> 
> Many ways might solve a certain problem and in Pd those many ways can
> often be divided into a "subtractive" approach - more than necessary is
> generated and the overhead is filtered out afterwards - and an
> "additive" approach - exactly the data needed is generated.
> 
> I believe you totally missed the point why I chose the latter here.
> Using a constant time grain for [line] generates too much data for slow
> ramps, leading to many duplicates. Attach a print to our patch and
> you'll see. At the same time it misses some integer numbers for fast
> ramps. Also, by having a fixed time grain the result looks like a
> resampled ramp (which it basically is), which means it is jittery and
> doesn't emulate a steady movement of the fader.
> 
> 
> Roman
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to