# Fluid.bufampslice~ not working correctly (when using numframes)

**URL:** https://discourse.flucoma.org/t/fluid-bufampslice-not-working-correctly-when-using-numframes/2004
**Category:** Bug Reports and Issues
**Created:** [July 11, 2023, 10:06pm UTC](https://discourse.flucoma.org/t/fluid-bufampslice-not-working-correctly-when-using-numframes/2004 "2023-07-11T22:06:18Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![rodrigo.constanzo](https://discourse.flucoma.org/user_avatar/discourse.flucoma.org/rodrigo.constanzo/32/12_2.png) [@rodrigo.constanzo](https://discourse.flucoma.org/u/rodrigo.constanzo)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2023, 12:11am UTC](https://discourse.flucoma.org/t/fluid-bufampslice-not-working-correctly-when-using-numframes/2004/2 "2023-07-12T00:11:34Z")

</div>

In thinking about this a bit more I remember way way back when I was first [wanting to make sense of `fluid.ampslice~`](https://discourse.flucoma.org/t/making-sense-of-fluid-ampslice/265) that there was something about the envelope followers getting pulled towards `-INF` with synthetic signals so normal-ish thresholds would take a really long time to respond. I don’t know what change was made but it was eventually addressed in a `fluid.ampslice~` update and I’ve been using it since. Perhaps this wasn’t ported over to the offline `.buf` version?

This would make sense since when analyzing the whole buffer that it would behave reasonably, but when doing isolated bits it doesn’t have enough time to respond. This would also explain why the first onset is being missed in jongly when analyzing the whole buffer.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.flucoma.org/t/fluid-bufampslice-not-working-correctly-when-using-numframes/2004)._