KrisW

im wondering if there is possibility to force adsr to shut down its release part when next voice is started (so its fading out immediately) ? so the result is monophonic like behaviour (without any clicks) .

did someone tried to implement several voicing methods ?

im wondering if there is possibility to force adsr to shut down its release part when next voice is started (so its fading out immediately) ? so the result is monophonic like behaviour (without any clicks) . 

shutting-down-adsr-within-the-last-voice

but within a poly right? Otherwise legato 0, but i guess you know that.

Hm, first thought is send (release 10) to the adsr, and right after that reset it to what the actual value was.

Detecting if another voice becomes active shouldn't be to hard. Did i understand what you want?

but within a poly right? Otherwise legato 0, but i guess you know that.
Hm, first thought is send (release 10) to the adsr, and right after that reset it to what the actual value was.
Detecting if another voice becomes active shouldn't be to hard. Did i understand what you want?
cheers!


yes yes .i guess i need to rely on artificial voice allocating and count the voices so i can target the last one . i thought that i should send (release 10) to the last voice and leave normal flow for the active one's . i did not checked it yet but this is more less the same you were thinking of right ?

exactly, why will you not be able to use usual voice allocation? I *think* you could just at the start of each adsr in all voices do what we've talked about(setting release to eg. 10 and resetting it), that way you would not need to car about voice allocation at all no? a bit of a messy solution though i guess it really could work well.

exactly, why will you not be able to use usual voice allocation? I *think* you could just at the start of each adsr in all voices do what we've talked about(setting release to eg. 10 and resetting it), that way you would not need to car about voice allocation at all no? a bit  of a messy solution though i guess it really could work well.


oh yes this is the logic , u are definitely right !

[target 0] (or [send] - as i remember send works for all the voices always - need to check )

thank you very much woyteg ,you are the man !!!!!!

oh yes this is the logic , u are definitely right !
[target 0] (or [send] - as i remember send works for all the voices always - need to check )
thank you very much woyteg ,you are the man !!!!!!


np! I once heard that it is officially not recommended to use send~ and receive~ (or was it the non-tilde version?) within poly~. I often used it without any problems that came to my attention. Does anybody know anything about this?

my system uses bunch of [send]'s ( but not[send~] ) and i didnt have any lacks . im using it to send into poly~ as well sending out from poly~ , perfectly timed . but no idea about [send~] :/

Check out the Borax object. It will tell you how many notes are held down. (takes midi note style input)

Check out the Borax object.  It will tell you how many notes are held down.  (takes midi note style input)


yes ive checked it already after i found your posts from last years :) you even provided some examples there . u helped me already :D thanks

Hi Peter !
yes ive checked it already after i found your posts from last years :) you even provided some examples there . u helped me already :D thanks


There has been some word from Cycling '74 re: send~/receive~ in poly~ that it's not recommended. I'm guessing that it probably makes it hard to do parallel processing because it breaks the isolation of the dsp chain. I'd say don't use send~/receive~ in poly~ if you don't need it.

On the other hand, send~/receive~ in poly~ allows you to do some things that have been harder in the past. With Max 6 you can keep the DSP chain going while you patch (via the cross fade option), which makes scripting a more viable alternative. (though a lot more work for certain things...)

There has been some word from Cycling '74 re: send~/receive~ in poly~ that it's not recommended.  I'm guessing that it probably makes it hard to do parallel processing because it breaks the isolation of the dsp chain.  I'd say don't use send~/receive~ in poly~ if you don't need it.

On the other hand, send~/receive~ in poly~ allows you to do some things that have been harder in the past.  With Max 6 you can keep the DSP chain going while you patch (via the cross fade option), which makes scripting a more viable alternative.  (though a lot more work for certain things...)


shutting down adsr within the last voice