Thanks all for the suggestions. I actually increased the delay time and it is no longer creating digital artifacts. I will be looking at other methods as well.

The increased delay is now 25 ms. I think that is acceptable.

Hello all,
You have been so helpful, I am hoping to get my composition to the next level of refinement, but am running into difficulties. What I am currently using:

MacBook Pro (15-inch, Late 2011)
MacOS: version 10.12.6
Processor: 2.2 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory: 4GB 1333 MHz DDR2
Graphics: Itel HD graphics 3000 384
Sample rate: 44100
Block size: 64
Delay: 5 msec

I am making a set of loops that are played back using delwrite~ and delread4~ These loops are between 15 and 90 seconds in length.

Now, when I do a variety of operations I am getting digital clicks. As an example if I clear the delwrite~ a click is produced in the other loops. I have isolated and taken away the loop audio using vline~, so it is not from that. I do not think so at least.

I started toying with longer delays and larger blocksizes. Is that the best way to alleviate this problem? Is there are recommended set for these two values?

Thank you! Yes, that is what I am thinking as well.

Hello all,
I think I get the difference between these.

1: phasor~ can run a loop over and over again. There can be issues when the file returns to the beginning though.

2: vline~, I think, has a delay, which does not occur with phasor~. I am really not sure with that one.

When I learned to use pd, I assume I was taught to use phasor~ with a hanning window to avoid digital clicks in audio file playback. I started to use phasor~ with hanning windows to fade in and fade out audio files as well.

However, I have been dabbling in using vline~ as well. In fact, I started to use vline~ with a hanning window as well which seems to work well.

Are there reasons to go with one of the other in various situations? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank, William

@whale-av RIght!

Yes, I should do that to see if there is a difference, but I doubt it would be noticeable.

Is there a difference between having two audio sources going directly into an object and using an additive object.

Essentially something like this:

|output1~| |output~2|
|                  |
| _______ /
|/
|*~ 1|

As opposed to:

|output1~| |output~2|
|                  |
|               /
|          /
|       /
|+~ 1|

Another way to explain this:

If you take two outputs put them in the left inlet in an object: |*~ 1|, that would be the same as one audio output into the left output and a second audio output into the right output of this object: |+~|

Hopefully this can should what I am trying to ask about. I do not think there is any difference between these two ways but want to be sure I am not missing something.

All of this has helped. Thank you so much.

Thanks. Where do I get ELSE? I do not mind using externals.

Thank you. This does seem close to what I want.

It is not working because the |filter~| does not exist in my library. Which library is that from?

I tried the link to www.katjaas.nl/ website but I get this:

403 Forbidden
Request forbidden by administrative rules.

Hello all,
So, lop~ attenuates the frequencies above the cutoff frequency, but it does not really take away that much. I always thought that lo pass filters were more cutoff filters and not attenuating filters.

Anyway, I linked a number of lop~ filters together on audio with the same cutoff frequency which did attenuate the frequencies above the cutoff more so. Is there a more elegant way to do this? Is there a patch?

Lastly, is there a reason the lop~ does not cutoff frequencies above the set frequency?

This all applies to hip~ as well.