hv_vline~

[diemildefreude]

1. Doesn't work with [0, 1 $1(, requires [0 0, 1 $1( instead.

2. Output envelope is different from [vline~] and can substantially change the sound when very fast envelopes are required for things like granulary synthesis.

[diplojocus]

hi @diemildefreude

Doesn't work with [0, 1 $1(, requires [0 0, 1 $1( instead.

This is one of the main reasons the [hv.vline] implementation isn't used as a drop in replacement for [vline~] in heavy because it doesn't exactly replicate the same behaviour in Pd. It originated as a basic replacement for sequencing envelope points in an easier way.

Feel free to submit a PR that improves on the parity with Pd though!

Output envelope is different from [vline~] and can substantially change the sound when very fast envelopes are required for things like granulary synthesis.

Again see above. Although also in this situation I would recommend using [phasor~] for your grain envelopes instead.

[diemildefreude]

Hi Joe, I've just tried to replicate vline's behavior (in this situation, i.e. resetting to 0 and going back up to 1) using phasor~ by feeding it the desired envelope length in milliseconds. I'd upload it, but for some reason, GitHub is telling me it doesn't support that file type, even though it's a .zip file (made with WinRAR). I can e-mail it to you, but here's the layout:

[1000(
|
[t b   f   b         f       f]
|     /    |         |       /
[delay]    [1000]    |      /
|          |        /      /
[0(        [/       ]     /
|        /             /
[sig~]            /
|              /
[phasor~]

The value stops short at .99... and it sounds a bit less smooth than the vline~. It's closer than the Heavy abstraction comes though.