@nicnut said:

But I just had a revelation that I can't believe I never though of before. If I multiply the output of line~ by a number I can separate pitch and time.

Ah ok, so what you meant is to separate pitch and the duration of playback -- sometimes use only part of the buffer.

Another solution (I'd say a more standard solution) is to use the phasor~ or line~ to handle pitch and playback start (I still think line~ is easier for your use case here), and use an envelope to choke the audio after the desired duration. Then it doesn't matter if the playback index keeps moving -- when the envelope closes, the sound is over.

One of my "audio engineering 101" bullet points is: every sound in nature has an envelope, so your patch should use an envelope too.

hjh

@nicnut said:

There is a number box labeled "transpose." The first step is to put a value in there, 1 being the original pitch, .5 is an octave down, 2 is an octave up, etc.

Here, you'd need to calculate the phasor frequency corresponding to normal playback speed, which is 1 / dur, where dur is the soundfile duration in seconds. Soundfile duration = soundfile size in samples / soundfile sample rate, so the phasor~ frequency can be expressed as soundfile sample rate / soundfile size in samples. Then you multiply this by a transpose factor, ok.

But I don't see you accounting for the soundfile's size or sample rate, so you have no guarantee of actually hitting normal playback speed.

After that you can change the frequency of the phasor in the other number box labled "change phasor frequency without changing pitch."

If you change the phasor frequency here, you will also change the transposition.

This way, I can make the phasor frequency, say .5 and the transposition 2,

Making the eventual playback speed 1 (assuming it was 1 to begin with), undoing the transposition.

which I don't think I can do using line~ with tabread4~.

The bad news is, you can't do this with phasor either.

hjh

@nicnut said:

If I pick the transposition first, then choose the phasor~ frequency second I can separate the pitch and the time

What do you mean by "separate the pitch and the time"? (Asking because often, computer-logic problems become easier after stating the problem in a more precise way.)

hjh

@nicnut said:

Yes line~ would be better, but one thing I am doing is also playing the file for longer periods of time, by lowering the phaser~ frequency, and doing some math the transpose the pitch of the playback that I would like to keep. With line~ I don't know how to separate the pitch and the playback speed.

If I understand you right, separating pitch and playback speed would require pitch shifting...?

With phasor~, you can play the audio faster or slower, and the pitch will be higher or lower accordingly.

With line~, you can play the audio faster or slower, with the same result.

To take a concrete example -- if you want to play 0-10 seconds in the audio file, you'd use a phasor~ frequency of 0.1 and map the phasor's 0-1 range onto 0 .. (samplerate*10) samples. If instead, the phasor~ frequency were 0.05, then it would play 10 seconds of audio within 20 seconds = half speed, one octave down.

With line~, if you send it messages "0, $1 10000" where $1 = samplerate*10, then it would play the same 10 seconds' worth of audio, in 10 seconds.

To change the rate, you'd only need to change the amount of time: 10000 / 0.5 (half speed) = 20000. 10 seconds of audio, over 20 seconds -- exactly the same as the phasor~ 0.05 result.

frequency = 1 / time, time = 1 / frequency. Whatever you multiply phasor~ frequency by, just divide line~ time by the same amount.

(line~ doesn't support changing rate in the middle though. There's another possible trick for that but perhaps not simpler than phasor~.)

hjh

If the goal is to play it one-shot and then stop, wouldn't line~ be better?

hjh

@jbaker said:

Success!

A-ha! Fantastic

I had a feeling you were just that close -- happy that you got it working.

hjh

@jbaker

I'd like to make a suggestion: Pick one set of objects to handle OSC, and just use those. It's in the nature of a tech forum for different people to have different opinions and offer multiple suggestions, but mixing and matching many different approaches can also lead to confusion.

So, for example, your screenshot -- at the top left, you have [packOSCstream] (why this and not [packOSC]? ** ) and then below, [oscformat]. That's a source of confusion. These two objects have quite different ways of handling OSC addresses (or what I've been calling "command paths") -- two idioms. Nah, this is a good way to introduce mistakes. So, pick one that you're more comfortable with.

** Ah, I see, [packOSC} help says "[packOSCstream] is a way to send OSC over TCP or serial connections" -- but you're using UDP, so, not relevant. Again, simplify: [packOSC] or [oscformat], pick one and stick with it.

Also -- you've got elements of this patch where it's already been explained why they are incorrect. If you connect a "send..." message box directly to a [netsend -u -b], it will not send an OSC-formatted message. Since you are sending to devices that expect OSC-formatted messages, for OSC it is always incorrect to pass a "send..." message directly to [netsend]. Never do this. But, in the top left part of your patch, I count 3 "send" message boxes that are patched directly to [netsend]. Delete those patch cables.

(Similarly, at the bottom of your patch, the line of objects coming directly down from [list trim] --> [route ch] --> [route 1 2 3 4] -- this is a part of my example patch that I had labeled with a comment saying "this will not work." Copying and pasting the non-working part is again going to be a source of confusion.)

~~

An OSC message has two parts.

• An address (for command) with slashes, e.g. /cs/chan/at/0.
• A list of arguments.
  • The argument list always has datatype tags, even if you don't specify them.
  • If you didn't write type tags, it will guess. In Pd, all numbers are floating-point, so outgoing OSC will format numbers as floating-point by default.
  • The X32 documentation says that it expects an integer 1 or 0. So, in [oscformat], you can force a number in a specific position to be integer-formatted by giving "i" as the type tag.

So...

Which.. for the message [set /cs/chan/select/47(, might make sense, because there's the 47?

No, it's not the 47. The 47 is part of the command path. How do you know it's part of the command path? Because it's connected with slashes in the device docs. The command path is totally excluded from the type tags -- it's always a string.

It gets a bit confusing with [oscformat] because the vanilla OSC objects write both the OSC address and the arguments as lists (no slashes).

• [packOSC] way: [send /cs/chan/select/47(
• [oscformat] way: [set cs chan select 47, bang(

OK, let's look at those.

  packOSC: 47 99 115 47 99 104 97 110 47 115 101 108 101 99 116 47 52 55 0 0 44 0 0 0
oscformat: 47 99 115 47 99 104 97 110 47 115 101 108 101 99 116 47 52 55 0 0 44 0 0 0

Notice that these are byte-for-byte identical. So these are just two different ways of expressing the same idea. (I do see in your screenshot where you're mixing and matching syntax, trying to use [oscformat] syntax with [packOSC] -- nope, this is not going to work. They have different programming interfaces.)

I suggest to slow down and do some smaller scale tests to make sure you can get the right result from the lighting board. Integration should come later.

hjh

@jbaker said:

Okay! I thought I was done... So I cleaned up the patch.
Since then, I realize my OSC commands to the lighting board aren't working

There's no oscformat or packOSC before the lower netsend here, so, in that version of the patch, you aren't sending OSC-formatted messages to the lighting board. If the lighting board expects OSC, it won't respond to plain streams of ascii bytes.

hjh

@jbaker said:

pd is printing like it should!

... wha...? I don't see what's different but... glad it's working!

Now... I guess.. How can I get the 0 or 1 value into the patch?

Pretty much like this -- the [pd ch1] etc. boxes just do

[inlet]
|
[route mix]
|
[route on]
|
[outlet]

Think of the OSC address space like a tree. 'ch' says it's a channel-related message. That branch of the tree splits off into a branch for each channel. Then each channel has properties or commands, of which one is 'mix' and below that, 'on' is one of many properties. [route] "peels off" each descriptor one by one and you can build the responses literally as a tree.

pd-osc-routing.pd

hjh

PS I didn't use MrPeach in this example bc I'm too lazy to install it.

Btw from jbaker's screenshots:

• Pd is definitely receiving a message from SC sent back to the Pd port, on the local machine (so, netsend isn't the problem).
• SC is receiving a reply back from the X32, confirming that the X32 is sending back to the originating port.
• But Pd netsend seems not to be receiving on the same port from the X32.

One difference is that the Pd vs SC test was on localhost, hence nothing to block traffic. (Why wasn't the X32 reply blocked for SC? SC doesn't randomize its outgoing port.)

I still think something in the OS is blocking the messages from the X32, but only for Pd.

hjh