Hi All - first post here, I'm pretty much as green as can be with PD but have been working on a 'live' patch for a while now...

I think i'm confusing the order of something here in sigmund~. I'm trying to use 'minpower' to measure the level that is reporting a pitch but wherever I have it in the argument - it doesn't seem to have any effect whatsoever!

currently written as "sigmund~ -minpower 50 -npeak 14 peaks"

npeak works regardless... have I done something completely idiotic here? am I missing a stage? Also, assuming I can fix this issue - can I use a number box/slider to change the minpower number in real time?

Many thanks indeed

Hi,
Isn't the -minpower flag meant to set a lower db threshold by which the analysis will take place?
In other words unless the minpower value is reached the object won't analyse the incoming event.
Also 50 is the default so in fact you don't need to flag it if you want to set the minpower to 50. This could also be why you are not noticing any effect.

If npeak is working are you not getting the result you want?
(to see the results:
[sigmund~ -neak14]
|
[route 0 1 2 3 4...]
|
[unpack 0 0 0 ...]
|
number boxes for 14 outlets

If you are getting too many/too fast values you can slow down and spread out the analysis by increasing the -ntps and -hop values.

You can reset flags by sending the object. a new argument value in a message box.
This is detailed in "pd setting parameters" in the sigmund~ help file, and in fact the -minpower flag is the one they use as an example.

This is a pretty common way of updating some arguments to some objects in Pd, super useful.
Hppe this helps!
best,
Jorge

Hi! Thank-you for this.. I think I misunderstood what minpower could do! Essentially, I was trying to use minpower to stop sigmund from reacting to anything too quiet, in that I wanted the resultant sounds from sigmund to react to the input - the louder the input, the more it reacted, the quieter the input the less you heard from sigmund (if that makes sense atall?!) I'm getting the sense with further testing that this is sort of how npeak reacts anyway?

thanks again for replying!