100% accurate


    Apr 07 2007 | 1:43 pm
    Im trying to get a function to fill a buffer, but im unable to get 100% accurate results. Wich is absolutely critical to my patch. can anyone help??.. im lost.

    • Apr 07 2007 | 1:50 pm
      Nothing about what kind of platform you're on, what version of the objects you're running, and *nothing* whatsoever in the way of a patch that one could use to make sense of what you're asking? You'd better hope that those few Max list readers who are clairvoyant are reading, I guess....
      More background and examples will get you better answers. Always. Want to try again?
    • Apr 07 2007 | 1:57 pm
      its pretty easy.. In tring to get a "Function" object. To fill a "buffer". With 100% acurracy, as in the buffer is filled with a perfect loopable content, thus mapped over perfect (buffer length).
    • Apr 07 2007 | 1:58 pm
      Yeah....haha.
      my question to you, is, which person on this planet did you expect to understand your question?
    • Apr 07 2007 | 2:04 pm
      > its pretty easy.. > In tring to get a "Function" object. > To fill a "buffer". > With 100% acurracy, as in the buffer is filled with a perfect loopable content, thus mapped over perfect (buffer length).
      Perhaps if you showed us your patch as it is....
    • Apr 07 2007 | 2:05 pm
      fine
    • Apr 07 2007 | 2:24 pm
    • Apr 07 2007 | 2:24 pm
    • Apr 07 2007 | 2:26 pm
      i have to go out right now, but a good tip i can give you is to use the right and middle outlets of uzi.
    • Apr 07 2007 | 2:31 pm
      haha. yes it`s a strip rebuild kinda thing:) thx didnt notice the detour.
    • Apr 07 2007 | 2:43 pm
      simplifyed version same bug
    • Apr 07 2007 | 2:52 pm
      Hi,
      I don't see any accuracy problem. I just simplified the patch, counter is really not required (uzi counts too). If you have 4.5.7 you can add the second argument to start counting from 0 directly).
      Cheers, ej
    • Apr 07 2007 | 2:54 pm
      lol, If u see the 2nd version patch. its a buffer~ for a wave~ object intended to loop. Im haveing troube with the end result not being a 1:1 copy of the wave shape presented graphically. and a minor difference in loopability is preceived useing this patch. (it clicks for short)
    • Apr 07 2007 | 3:06 pm
      I`ll give it a try, looks better with the trigger, thx
    • Apr 07 2007 | 3:07 pm
      If I try this in your patch..
      .. I get a nice sawtooth sound. Not an anti-aliased sawtooth of course.
      Mattijs
      Quote: lukhasj wrote on Sat, 07 April 2007 16:54 ---------------------------------------------------- > lol, If u see the 2nd version patch. > its a buffer~ for a wave~ object intended to loop. > Im haveing troube with the end result not being a 1:1 copy > of the wave shape presented graphically. > and a minor difference in loopability is preceived useing this patch. (it clicks for short) > ----------------------------------------------------
    • Apr 07 2007 | 3:08 pm
      Quote: Mattijs wrote on Sat, 07 April 2007 17:07 ---------------------------------------------------- > If I try this in your patch..
    • Apr 07 2007 | 3:28 pm
      > If you have 4.5.7 > you can add the second argument to start counting from 0 directly. > Excellent, I hadn't realized that uzi new feature! JF.
    • Apr 07 2007 | 11:00 pm
      tight stuff:)
    • Apr 07 2007 | 11:15 pm
      you should look at zigzag~
    • Apr 07 2007 | 11:34 pm
      its not fast enough for what im doing with it.
    • Apr 08 2007 | 1:30 am
      what, zigzag~? 1/sample rate is too slow to trigger?
      it's an object i just discovered and it's my favorite new find.
      On Apr 7, 2007, at 7:34 PM, lukas wrote:
      > > its not fast enough for what im doing with it. >
    • Apr 08 2007 | 1:43 pm
      1/"control rate" this object can bitshape.
    • Apr 08 2007 | 2:09 pm
      fair enough. what are you trying to do anyway?
    • Apr 08 2007 | 2:37 pm
      Avoiding to have to use overdive @ 96khz samplerate asio, with 96khz substructure. It`s a (put in send and receive patcher) way to bypass the use of a line~ using a wave and phasor~ design.
      It`s sharp and nippy not held back by data limitting, at the cost of processor power. It`s one of my flaws to do this, but who cares these days??