xgrooover

question-about-mute

without seeing your code (i don't find an attachment either)--

the way i do this is by appending a 1 (sound off) or 0 (sound on) to the control messages to a synth (or effect etc), which i route to a [mute~] connected to an inlet on its soundproducing guts. using [pass~] in the subpatch ensures there is no sound when [mute~] is on.

without seeing your code (i don't find an attachment either)--
the way i do this is by appending a 1 (sound off) or 0 (sound on) to the control messages to a synth (or effect etc), which i route to a [mute~] connected to an inlet on its soundproducing guts. using [pass~] in the subpatch ensures there is no sound when [mute~] is on.
hope this helps.
cheers, robbert


Hi!! thank you Stefan and Chris, i really apreciated your help!i will take a

Hi!! thank you Stefan and Chris, i really apreciated your help!i will take a
look at home and give you feedback!

Hi Chris, thanx for you patch it really helped me to solve this, however, i

think you should have added another outlet to the trigger and connect the

here goes and works like a bird, when all the sounds fade out the cpu really

Hi Chris, thanx for you patch it really helped me to solve this, however, i
think you should have  added another outlet to the trigger and connect the
mute~ on it
here goes and works like a bird, when all the sounds fade out the cpu really
stops  ;)

But with your approach, won't the first partial to be finished cause the sound to stop? That may be what you want, but I wouldn't have thought so.

>you should have added another outlet to the trigger and 

It's true that I relied on the r-to-l evaluation in my version. Being explicit with "t" is always a good idea.

>you should have added another outlet to the trigger and 
>connect the mute~ on it

> But with your approach, won't the first partial to be finished cause the

> may be what you want, but I wouldn't have thought so.

it seems to independent process mutes for each instance of the subpatch ;)

> But with your approach, won't the first partial to be finished cause the
sound to stop? That
> may be what you want, but I wouldn't have thought so.

it seems to independent process mutes for each instance of the subpatch   ;)

Quote: xgrooover wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 12:33

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

> it seems to independent process mutes for each instance of the subpatch ;)

Right, but not for individual partials in a voice. As it stands now, the first partial to finish will mute a voice, won't it?

Quote: xgrooover wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 12:33
----------------------------------------------------
> it seems to independent process mutes for each instance of the subpatch   ;)

yes right, the first partial to finish will mute the voice.

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Chris Muir wrote:

> Quote: xgrooover wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 12:33

> ----------------------------------------------------

> > it seems to independent process mutes for each instance of the subpatch

> Right, but not for individual partials in a voice. As it stands now, the

> first partial to finish will mute a voice, won't it?

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Chris Muir  wrote:

>
> Quote: xgrooover wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 12:33
> ----------------------------------------------------
> > it seems to independent process mutes for each instance of the subpatch
> ;)
>
> Right, but not for individual partials in a voice. As it stands now, the
> first partial to finish will mute a voice, won't it?
>
> -C
>
>
> --
> Chris Muir
> cbm@well.com
> http://www.xfade.com
>
>
>

Quote: xgrooover wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 13:13

> yes right, the first partial to finish will mute the voice.

And is that really what you want? The version I posted didn't have this problem.

Quote: xgrooover wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 13:13
----------------------------------------------------
> yes right, the first partial to finish will mute the voice.

On May 28, 2008, at 12:24 AM, grooover morin wrote:

> clarify one thing to me, the partials inside the voice all start and 

> end at diferent times? if so your version really makes sense!!

Well it all depends on the data set you feed the partials, but yeah, 

harmonics have different envelopes, and, in general, higher harmonics 

die off before lower harmonics in the real world.

Most of your data sets all have the same length of envelope, but your 

preset five is one example of different length partial envelopes. The 

higher harmonics are about half the length of the lower harmonics.

> clarify one thing to me, the partials inside the voice all start and  
> end at diferent times? if so your version really makes sense!!

Well it all depends on the data set you feed the partials, but yeah,  
harmonics have different envelopes, and, in general, higher harmonics  
die off before lower harmonics in the real world.

Most of your data sets all have the same length of envelope, but your  
preset five is one example of different length partial envelopes. The  
higher harmonics are about half the length of the lower harmonics.

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com	
http://www.xfade.com

Ok!Thank you so much Chris!!
Your help was precious!!

question about mute~