Hello

I have a sampler abstraction that reads an array with [phasor~] when it receives a bang. I've set it up thus:

[metro 1| [phasor~]
| /
[snapshot~]
|
[> 0.999]
|
[sel 1]
|
[0(

and the [0( goes into the left and right inlets of the above [phasor~]. This is to prevent the sample from looping while allowing it to start from the beginning when a new bang comes in. This works, but it feels a bit hacky, so I'm open to other suggestions. NB: the playback speed (left inlet of [phasor~] is variable during playback.

@s.elliot.perez Hello s.......... I think you only need the [> 0.999] or the [sel 1] and not both, but otherwise I cannot see a better way........
[> 0.999] "seems safer" but [sel 1] is prettier and shows more confidence in Pd working as it should!
David.

It sounds like [line~] is better for what you wanna do...

@whale-av I tried it with just [sel 1] and it didn't work. [metro 1]>[snapshot~] is apparently not high-res enough to detect that one value. [>] outputs 1 and 0 and I only want 0, whence I added [sel 1] afterwards. I also added a [change] between them to avoid a stream of superfluous bangs.

@alexandros The [phasor~] speed changes during all of this, not sure how I would do that with [line~].

@s.elliot.perez Yes........ I was afraid of that...... hence the "I think"..........
You are correct then........
If you put it in a sub-patch then you will never have to look at it again!
OR........ you could use the right outlet of [moses 1].......
David.

[bang~] ----> [snapshot~]

?

@heyok Thanks heyok, I didn't even know about that object. It makes things a little more compact - amazingly, [bang~]>[snapshot~]>[sel 1] (or [moses 1]) still doesn't work, so [> 0.999]>[change]>[sel 1] it is!

Would this be sample accurate? might be heavier than the change solution, idk.