Thanks Hans and IOhannes! I'll take a look at this as well but so far [zexy/z~] looks best to me.
Ingo >> I also needed a delay in samples and so I made an abstraction in Pd >> vanilla, delaying a signal with x number of samples; for example a one >> sample delay is [delaysam 1] >> I think this is the correct way of doing this without needing externals... >> Hans > -----Original Message----- > From: Pd-list [mailto:pd-list-boun...@lists.iem.at] On Behalf Of IOhannes m > zmoelnig > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 2:02 PM > To: pd-list@lists.iem.at > Subject: Re: [PD] Audio delay by samples (for comb filter) > > On 27.01.20 11:29, i...@hansroels.be wrote: > > > > I also needed a delay in samples and so I made an abstraction in Pd > > vanilla, delaying a signal with x number of samples; for example a > > one sample delay is [delaysam 1] I think this is the correct way of > > doing this without needing externals... > > kind of. > > - using [$1] can give you all kinds of nasty surprises, as you can e.g. > use [delaysam samplerate~]. i'd rather go for [float $1] instead. > - debugging printout (and a fan-out!) should be removed > - why do you use [vd~]? do you need fractional sample-delay (the answer > might well be "yes")? if not, than [vd~] is just taking more CPU-power... > - why do you ramp to the target-delay with [line~]? since you cannot change > the delay after the instantiation, i would rather have it jump to the target > delay immediately. > > gfasdrm, > IOhannes _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list