Re: delays and buffers

> On Jun 29, 2008, at 4:01 AM, Andre Bartetzki wrote:
>
>
> > BufTapIn.ar(inputArray, bufnum);
> > BufTapOut.ar(numChannels, bufnum, delaytime, interpolation);
> > ???
> > Would it be hard to implement that?
> >
> > Also, I'd like to have non-interpolating Delay UGens which take just
> samples
> > instead of delaytimes, like Delay1 and Delay2.
> > For the construction of reverbs it would be good to also have sample based
> > versions for Comb and Allpass. Plus a feedback argument instead of
> > decaytime!
> >
>
>
>  I think all of these are possible, but at the same time, these are just
> variants of things that do already exist. I agree that finding an efficient
> tap would be a good idea (I'll look into it), but converting between time
> and samples is pretty easy math. Making a new UGen for it seems like a bit
> of overkill.
>
>  I think the main reason behind using times instead of samples and decaytime
> instead of feedback has to do making code that will easily move between
> sample rates. Samples and feedback would drastically change how a delay
> would react between different sample rates, so it is much safer to use the
> current UGens.
>
>  With that in mind, if you really do think that you need a delay with
> samples instead of time, it would be easy to make (actually easier then the
> ones we currently have)... feedback and decaytime as well.
>
>  How do others feel?