Tap In/Tap Out 1 sample off?

    Jun 29 2010 | 12:27 pm
    Is this still true for Max 5? I am trying to use it for a fractional-delay filter or would I be better off with an external?

    • Jun 29 2010 | 8:43 pm
      Yes - as far as I'm aware it is true that delay~ and tapin~/tapout~ give an extra sample of delay *WHEN* the delay time is driven with a signal (I'm not 100% on the case of a float/int). You can compensate this of course. Thus in contradiction to raja's post you *can* set a delay of 0 samples, but you can a delay of one sample, and so on.
      The workaround is trivial if tedious....
      (the above will work for any sample rate - the [adstatus] variable could be almost anything that will trigger if audio is restarted...
      The reason for the extra sample concerns the method of interpolation and although I reported this a bug c74 do not feel this way - I see their reasoning, although I wouldn't have made the same choice. The reply I got was that it was not going to change....
    • Jun 29 2010 | 8:47 pm
      Oh - of course - fractional delays of less than one sample are not possible, unless you are prepared / able to delay the rest of your signal path by one sample to end up with the correct relative delay..
    • Jun 30 2010 | 8:59 am
      tapin~/tapout~ introduce one vector size of delay. The extra delay of one sample can be caused by floating point precision.
    • Jun 30 2010 | 12:40 pm
      @ej -
      1 - can you confirm with patch that tapin~/tapout~ ALWAYS introduce one vector size of delay? This is not my experience at all...
      2 - Yes, of course there may be floating point imprecision converting from milliseconds to samples. However, the sample delay I was talking about is NOT caused by floating point imprecision, but is additional to this. This is easier to see in the case of delay~, where there is no conversion happening.
    • Jun 30 2010 | 2:33 pm
      You'll find 2 examples which show that there's always a minimum of one vector size of delay. In the second example you can clearly hear the difference when you change the number of samples of the vector size.
    • Jun 30 2010 | 4:01 pm
      @ej - ah I see - a minimum of one vector I know about - sorry your post implied one vector plus the required delay....
      Thanks for clarification.
    • Jul 01 2010 | 12:53 pm
      Thanks for all your help guys! Much appreciated!