Roman Thilenius

what is the best approach to have a [cycle~] which allows the use of more than 512 samples? (i need 1000)

i am looking for a way to loop inside a wavetable while allowing to set the speed using a signal.

with [counter~] and [index~] it is a bit complicated to set the speed for oscillator tuning, and as we know groove does not accept signals.

cycle~ would be almost perfect, it is just too short.

this is max 4.1 and without third party objects if possible.

cycle-size-limit

i may add a second question: how do you load new files into a buffer while a cycle is playing from it?

until now i was putting the cycle into a poly~ and turn it off and on again after i update the buffer content. there must be an easier was.

On 20 juin 07, at 21:44, Roman Thilenius wrote:

> what is the best approach to have a [cycle~] which allows the use 

> of more than 512 samples? (i need 1000)

> i am looking for a way to loop inside a wavetable while allowing to 

> with [counter~] and [index~] it is a bit complicated to set the 

> speed for oscillator tuning, and as we know groove does not accept 

> cycle~ would be almost perfect, it is just too short.

> what is the best approach to have a [cycle~] which allows the use  
> of more than 512 samples? (i need 1000)
>
> i am looking for a way to loop inside a wavetable while allowing to  
> set the speed using a signal.
>
> with [counter~] and [index~] it is a bit complicated to set the  
> speed for oscillator tuning, and as we know groove does not accept  
> signals.
>
> cycle~ would be almost perfect, it is just too short.

On 20 juin 07, at 21:50, Roman Thilenius wrote:

> i may add a second question: how do you load new files into a 

> buffer while a cycle is playing from it?

> until now i was putting the cycle into a poly~ and turn it off and 

> on again after i update the buffer content. there must be an easier 

> i may add a second question: how do you load new files into a  
> buffer while a cycle is playing from it?
>
> until now i was putting the cycle into a poly~ and turn it off and  
> on again after i update the buffer content. there must be an easier  
> was.

yeah, no, it works in all situaiton but not when a running cycle reads from a buffer.

the new buffer is written from load, but cycle still reads from the old (physically) buffer.

if you have luck they even play both, the old and the new version.

wave~ .. yes true, though i am not really happy with the way it takes start and end points, especially because its ms and not samples.

>
> How about sending the set message? ;-)

yeah, no, it works in all situaiton but not when a running cycle reads from a buffer.
the new buffer is written from load, but cycle still reads from the old (physically) buffer.
if you have luck they even play both, the old and the new version.
:/

wave~ .. yes true, though i am not really happy with the way it takes start and end points, especially because its ms and not samples.


> wave~ .. yes true, though i am not really happy with the way it takes start and end points, especially because its ms and not samples.

----------------------------------------------------

oh it also takes signals too! see, thats why i didnt use it bf.

> wave~ .. yes true, though i am not really happy with the way it takes start and end points, especially because its ms and not samples.
----------------------------------------------------

oh it also takes signals too! see, thats why i didnt use it bf.


On 20 juin 07, at 22:29, Roman Thilenius wrote:

> yeah, no, it works in all situaiton but not when a running cycle 

> the new buffer is written from load, but cycle still reads from the 

> if you have luck they even play both, the old and the new version.

I'd suggest your using 2 buffers and switch from one to the other 

> yeah, no, it works in all situaiton but not when a running cycle  
> reads from a buffer.
> the new buffer is written from load, but cycle still reads from the  
> old (physically) buffer.
> if you have luck they even play both, the old and the new version.
> :/

I'd suggest your using 2 buffers and switch from one to the other  
when file reading operation is done.

On 20 Jun 2007, at 22:29, Roman Thilenius wrote:

>> How about sending the set message? ;-)

maybe i get you wrong, but this works just fine:

>>
>> How about sending the set message? ;-)
>
>
> yeah, no, it works in all situaiton but not when a running cycle  
> reads from a buffer.
> the new buffer is written from load, but cycle still reads from the  
> old (physically) buffer.
> if you have luck they even play both, the old and the new version.

cycle~ size limit