Subject: MAX Digest - 14 May 1999 to 15 May 1999 (#1999-147)
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 00:00:05 -0400
From: Automatic digest processor 
Reply-To: MAX - Interactive Music/Multimedia Standard Environments
To: Recipients of MAX digests 

There are 3 messages totalling 114 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. timecode 3!
  2. re tapin~, tapout~
  3. wht about dvd control? is ther any max object to do it?


Date:    Sat, 15 May 1999 11:21:47 +0000
From:    andy gracie 
Subject: timecode 3!

thanks all for the tips so far which i am currently downloading/digesting

another thought....

is there any way i could "bluff" an external device into thinking it is
getting a timecode location by just sending it a list of similarly
formatted numbers. i had a quick go at doing this using a midiformat object
but it didn't work (unsurprisingly!). any other ways around this?

thanks all



Date:    Sun, 16 May 1999 02:37:26 +0200
From:    Melvyn Poore 
Subject: re tapin~, tapout~

On 13 May, Lawrence Casserley wrote:

> 1 - A message to change the tap times in a multiple output tapout~ does
> not work. The first tap time is not changed, and the first time in the
> list is applied to the second, the second to the third, etc. Using unpack
> works correctly. Is this a feature? :-)>

I have also used tapin~ and tapout~ in several patches and up to now have
not come across this problem.  I tried to reproduce it, but haven't yet
succeeded.  I haven't used unpack in front of tapout~, but spray has worked
fine for me.

Maybe this is one of those problems that has something to do with the
environment around MAX, rather than MAX itself (like my problem with the
compressed files earlier this week).

> While I am on the subject, permit me one small rant! I find the named
> delwrite~ and delread~ used on the ISPW infinitely more intuitive and
> flexible. The tap link seems to be an anomaly in the system - you can't
> use send and receive (or send~ and receive~) to get around the problem.
> It seems to be a bit unreliable through inlets/outlets also. Does anyone
> else have any views on this?  Oh yes, and I don't like the names either!
> :-)>

Maybe I'm just being sentimental, but I did find delwrite~ and delread~
conceptually easier to implement and having to have the wired connection
looks like an unnecessary limitation.  Is it not possible to have the tapin~
and tapout~ objects name their memory space, thus avoiding the wired
connection?  I'm sure there are things involved here which haven't yet
occurred to me...


Melvyn Poore
Uferstrasse 166
D-53859 Niederkassel

Tel & Fax: +49-2208-911217
see also:


Date:    Sun, 16 May 1999 05:54:07 +0200
From:    jose manuel berenguer 
Subject: wht about dvd control? is ther any max object to do it?


perhaps this question has been already asked and answered. if this is the
case, i apologize for it.

is there any object to control dvd devices from a max programm? can be
controled more than one of them?

if it exists, someone could tell me where could i get it?

many thanks

jos=E9 manuel

Jose Manuel Berenguer

tel/fax 34-93-2857150.  tel/fax 34-972-795002

Orquestra del Caos. tel 34-93-3064137. fax 34-93-3064113

nosotros tambien


End of MAX Digest - 14 May 1999 to 15 May 1999 (#1999-147)