@jamcultur It's not a bug -- it's normal behavior.

It's documented in the html manual: https://msp.ucsd.edu/Pd_documentation/resources/chapter2.htm#s2.4.2

2.4.2. Depth first message passing
Whenever a message is triggered in Pd, the receiver may then send out further messages in turn, and the receivers of those messages can send yet others. So each message sets off a tree of subsequent messages. This tree is executed in depth first fashion.

"Depth first" means that, when a value comes out of an object's outlet, that branch of the tree must continue all the way to its end before the same outlet can go down a different branch, or before the same object can send data out of a different outlet.

Take a simpler example:

When the random number goes down the [* 2] branch, it must continue down to the [print secondValueCalculated] before it can advance down the [print firstValueCalculated] branch. The whole [* 2] branch must 100% complete.

Humans might look at this patch and think, "Well, the 'print first' branch is simpler, so, intuitively it should be done first." Computers don't think like that.

In code (I'll use SC), it would look like:

(
~func1 = {
    var number = 10.rand;
    ~func2.value(number);
    "first value = %\n".postf(number);
};

~func2 = { |number|
    var result = number * 2;
    "second value = %\n".postf(result);
    result
};

~func1.value;
)

->

second value = 14
first value = 7

~func1 specifies to do ~func2 first, then print. The Pd patch is the same.

I wish Pd's documentation called more attention to looping formulas that Just Work. Users often end up just trying to figure it out for themselves and getting tied in knots.

A for loop goes like this: for(i = 0; i < count; i++) { loop body }

That is, in C, there's a standardized way to write a counting loop -- following the formula avoids confusion. In Pd, there does exist (what should be) a standardized way to write a counting loop, and just like in C, following the formula avoids confusion -- but the formula isn't well enough known, and tricky for users to discover.

hjh

@atux said:

is there a way to remove all transients (except the first note) so that, by scrolling "pitch" box number up and down, you hear a single continuous glissando?

The typical way that MIDI synths support this is by setting it to mono mode and using "legato glide" or "fingered portamento."

I'm not sure if sfont~ supports that usage. If not, you're out of luck -- bc the only way for this to work is if the instrument can distinguish between a note-on message that should reattack and one that should glide. If the instrument's code doesn't make this distinction, then no amount of MIDI note mangling will make a difference.

Or you could try setting a wide pitch bend range, but that usually sounds pretty silly with samples. (It would be nice if samplers could crossfade between different key ranges when pitch bending, but I've never seen any sampler do that, not even Kontakt. Maybe they added that feature? I don't use samplers often enough to keep up with the very latest developments.)

hjh

Recently hit upon this approach to OSC handling -- pro: easily scalable by just adding more [r] keys; con: no way to print an error for unrecognized OSC paths.

Maybe it's old news for some, but I hadn't seen it before, and it made this recent patch a lot easier to write.

hjh

@porres said:

Good luck.

BTW else/receiver just saved my bacon -- thanks for that!

hjh

@porres said:

The other interpolators in wave~'s help file are all "hermite", and the one used by SuperCollider/ELSE/tabosc4c~ is "Catmull-Rom Spline". So, "Catmull-Rom" should be specific enough

SC source tree/include/plugin_interface/SC_SndBuf.h:

inline float cubicinterp(float x, float y0, float y1, float y2, float y3) {
    // 4-point, 3rd-order Hermite (x-form)
    float c0 = y1;
    float c1 = 0.5f * (y2 - y0);
    float c2 = y0 - 2.5f * y1 + 2.f * y2 - 0.5f * y3;
    float c3 = 0.5f * (y3 - y0) + 1.5f * (y1 - y2);

    return ((c3 * x + c2) * x + c1) * x + c0;
}

Maybe JMc was wrong to call it "3rd-order Hermite (x-form)" but... he didn't develop this standard formula by himself, so I assume that (30 years ago for SC1 or SC2) he got it from some source that called it this.

I don't have any more time to look at this (project must be completed by next Tuesday) so... I have an lfdnoise3~ abstraction that will work for my use case, hence, I'm bowing out of this chat.

hjh

About those kinks --

tabread-interp.pd

lg-diff -- the slope of the Lagrange interpolation -- shows some gaps; at those places, the Lagrange interpolation will change direction suddenly. hm-diff may change direction at a sharp corner, but those corners link up. The fast oscillation toward the end of this one looks smoother to my eye in the Hermite version, where tabread4~ on the left looks uncomfortably close to straight line segments.

hjh

@porres said:

Though not enough to understand or know what "quadratically interpolated" or "cubic interpolated" is supposed to mean so I ask

Sure, "cubic" doesn't specify which cubic (and it would be better if the help did state the formula).

And again, what is bad about [tabread4~]'s method ("lagrange" so it seems)? And what is good about [tabread4c~]?

tabread4~ can output kinks at control points (when the phasor wraps around), where a "kink" is a place where the slope of the output curve changes suddenly. The other formula (labeled Hermite in the SC sources) has a smooth, continuous derivative throughout.

hjh

@porres said:

I didn;t know about "LFDNoise3", is it a new one?

It's been there for years, I'd guess at least 10 years though I didn't check the commit history to confirm that.

Wow, I can't believe they have so many
I see this one is dynamic....

(Deleted snarky and irrelevant comment about the quality of the documentation, which still is better than Max/MSP's help in many respects. But there I go, being snarky and irrelevant.)

The original LFNoise UGens behave like envelopes, where the time to the next control point gets sampled-and-held. So if the frequency happens to be 0.01, the next control point will happen 100 seconds later, no matter how the frequency modulates.

Wow, that's bad

The existence of LFDNoise UGens tells you that SC developers agree with you, and solved the problem (a long time ago). So there's really not much point to taking potshots at this particular target.

and for someone not that much into math, this is not enough, can anyone help? What kind of interpolation is spline? I don't wanna look into their source code

You're into math enough to maintain a DSP-and-other-stuff library for Pd anyway a little dive into the source code shows that SC's plugin_interface headers define a function cubicinterp() that uses the same formula mentioned in the other thread, that's used in tabread4c~.

hjh

@porres said:

I don't get the interpolation formula, which one is it?

That's the "bad" one from tabread4~ where, in my abstraction, I used the "good" one from tabread4c~ -- see https://forum.pdpatchrepo.info/topic/14762/fidelity-of-tabread4/7

hjh

BTW I ended up still using the array for initialization -- with the samphold~ - rzero_rev~ approach, d won't receive a nonzero value until the third cycle, maybe not OK for the very slow control signals I need in this project.

But this works!

lfdnoise3~.pd

hjh