Steven Miller

I created a small abstraction (actually recreated it, but that's 

another story...) that takes a float and returns another float within 

+/- N% of the input float. It functions just fine, but the algorithm 

seems a little overly torturous to me. I'm wondering what an easier/ 

simpler/more elegant way to accomplish this might be, using only 

standard Max objects. Could this all, for example, be done within an 

[expr]? Any suggestions would be educational and appreciative.

I created a small abstraction (actually recreated it, but that's  
another story...) that takes a float and returns another float within  
+/- N% of the input float. It functions just fine, but the algorithm  
seems a little overly torturous to me. I'm wondering what an easier/ 
simpler/more elegant way to accomplish this might be, using only  
standard Max objects. Could this all, for example, be done within an  
[expr]? Any suggestions would be educational and appreciative.

easier-way-to-do-this

I find it really meditative to work on things like this! But i struggled a little to improve on your patch until i realised that by doubling the random amount and subtracting half you can eliminate the need for the decide and if section.

Because of this it's about 30% faster on my machine.

I find it really meditative to work on things like this! But i struggled a little to improve on your patch until i realised that by doubling the random amount and subtracting half you can eliminate the need for the decide and if section. 

... and one with even less objects using 'scale' it's slightly less fast than my previous example though....

It's funny...I was just telling one of my students about that very 

technique a few days ago when discussing scaling one range of numbers 

to another...drew him an example patch and everything...then promptly 

forgot all about it when making my abstraction today.

The speed gain is about the same on my machine (2.16 GHz MacBook Pro, 

2GB RAM, MaxMSP 4.6.2) as what you report.

On Feb 24, 2007, at 11:00 PM, Leafcutter John wrote:

> I find it really meditative to work on things like this! But i 

> struggled a little to improve on your patch until i realised that 

> by doubling the random amount and subtracting half you can 

> eliminate the need for the decide and if section.

> Because of this it's about 30% faster on my machine.

It's funny...I was just telling one of my students about that very  
technique a few days ago when discussing scaling one range of numbers  
to another...drew him an example patch and everything...then promptly  
forgot all about it when making my abstraction today.

The speed gain is about the same on my machine (2.16 GHz MacBook Pro,  
2GB RAM, MaxMSP 4.6.2) as what you report.

>
> I find it really meditative to work on things like this! But i  
> struggled a little to improve on your patch until i realised that  
> by doubling the random amount and subtracting half you can  
> eliminate the need for the decide and if section.
>
> Because of this it's about 30% faster on my machine.
>
> My patch is included below....
>

Yeah, the speed gain of this one is minimal on my machine, as well.

On Feb 24, 2007, at 11:13 PM, Leafcutter John wrote:

> ... and one with even less objects using 'scale' it's slightly less 

> fast than my previous example though....

>
> ... and one with even less objects using 'scale' it's slightly less  
> fast than my previous example though....
>

i think your gut reaction that your patch was too complicated was accurate. i found a way to do it using 8 standard objects. see below:

i think your gut reaction that your patch was too complicated was accurate.  i found a way to do it using 8 standard objects.  see below:

Thanks Scott - I knew I was making it overly complicated...it's funny 

how you get caught up in things and just can't see straight.

On Feb 25, 2007, at 6:15 PM, Scott wrote:

> i think your gut reaction that your patch was too complicated was 

> accurate. i found a way to do it using 8 standard objects. see 

Thanks Scott - I knew I was making it overly complicated...it's funny  
how you get caught up in things and just can't see straight.

>
> i think your gut reaction that your patch was too complicated was  
> accurate.  i found a way to do it using 8 standard objects.  see  
> below:
>
> -scott
>

well, LCJohn made a fine point, that, it's very worthwhile to meditate on these sorts of things. That is to say, if you want to be the best Maxer this side of the Mississippi.

easier way to do this?