Delay & Feedback


    Sep 16 2007 | 6:06 pm
    I'm creating a simple [tapin~] / [tapout~] system, with feedback possibilities.
    I'd like to control the feedback volume according to the number of repetitions it will create.
    In other words, I'd like to know the feedback volume needed to make 1 repetition, 2 repetitions, 3 repetitions.

    • Sep 16 2007 | 7:26 pm
      On 16 Sep 2007, at 19:06, Bertrand Fraysse wrote:
      > In other words, I'd like to know the feedback volume needed to make > 1 repetition, 2 repetitions, 3 repetitions.
      The maths doesn't work like that. If you have feedback > 0, you have an infinite number of repetitions. End of.
      If you want a discrete number of echoes, you're better off putting multiple explicit taps into the delay.
      -- N.
      Nick Rothwell / Cassiel.com Limited www.cassiel.com www.myspace.com/cassieldotcom www.loadbang.net
    • Sep 16 2007 | 7:51 pm
    • Sep 16 2007 | 10:04 pm
      It's a nice idea but it would be too CPU intensive and I don't really want this to be precise. After few experiences, I think I'll use this to control the feedback amount.
    • Sep 17 2007 | 6:52 am
      there is also [tapout 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0] - not everyone knows about that because the help file is quiet about it.
    • Sep 17 2007 | 1:32 pm
      whoa! i didn't know about that!
      On Sep 17, 2007, at 2:52 AM, Roman Thilenius wrote:
      > > > there is also [tapout 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0] - not everyone > knows about that because the help file is quiet about it. >
    • Sep 17 2007 | 2:46 pm
      crap roman how do you find these things out???
    • Sep 17 2007 | 3:03 pm
      Probably by reading the f m. As someone much wiser than myself here once told me (probably Peter C.), don't rely on the .help files alone. There's often more to be found in the reference manual (and sometimes even more surprises when you ctrl-alt-click on an object to see what messages it understands), cheers Roger
    • Sep 17 2007 | 3:13 pm
      that's the first thing new devotees of the 110 cult learn at their initiation. I tried, but it was too bloody...
      or he just read it in the reference manual!
      On Sep 17, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
      > > crap roman how do you find these things out???
    • Sep 17 2007 | 3:27 pm
      On 17 sept. 07, at 16:46, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
      > crap roman how do you find these things out???
      MSP46ReferenceManual.pdf, page 414
      but also already in MSP doc rev1.1 (1998), page 281
      And it's also written in the tapout.help file.
      _____________________________ Patrick Delges
      Centre de Recherches et de Formation Musicales de Wallonie asbl http://www.crfmw.be/max
    • Sep 17 2007 | 6:33 pm
      they must have been updating the help file when i was not on my computer.
      now i am wondering how they have access to my computer?
      but nice that they still support OS 9 really.
    • Sep 17 2007 | 9:17 pm
      oh yeah, Im not a big reader per say
      hehe
    • Sep 18 2007 | 4:30 am
      Quote: Axiom-Crux wrote on Mon, 17 September 2007 15:17 ---------------------------------------------------- > oh yeah, Im not a big reader per say > > hehe ----------------------------------------------------
      i was sure that you (in opposite to jb) really didnt know it.
      the help file says something like "you can enter as much as delay times accoring to the number of outlets you want". that is a very cryptic way of saying "tapout can have up to 64 arguments."
      i read that for the first time in my life last night. luckily i know how to use the trial and error method very well. :)
      more info about why it is the biggest error in academic sciences today that people use a solution for a problem once found over and over again (like looking in help files) - instead of finding new ways of problem solving on a daily basis can be found the source code of microsoft office and in books by philosophs like luebbe.
      -110 (reinventor of the wheel)
    • Sep 18 2007 | 4:37 am
      > i was sure that you (in opposite to jb) really didnt know it.
      oops that was j.goldberg i thought it was a comment from j. bernstein. :) but maybe its still true what i said?