OK, now I've got it. This can be explained! It especially makes sense with the old "infinite looping" counter patch:
[f]X[+ 1] where [+ 1] gets sent to the hot rather than the cold inlet of [f]. It wouldn't be such a problem if it only counted on signal blocks, but it actually counts as fast as the CPU will let it. Great, concept is clear, I can continue! best, d. IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > Derek Holzer wrote: >> So now that I've been told that actually DSP objects are "slower", it >> shakes up my world view a bit, so I'm looking for new metaphors to get >> it back together ;-) > > > all the "slower" vs "faster" is non-sense. > > signals are handled in a _synchronous_ way (they have to process 44100 > samples per second; synchronized with the soundcard); they do this > continuosly (once you have started the audio-engine they will process > 44100 samples/sec until the end of the world, or the audio engine gets > stopped) > > messages are handled in an _asynchronous_ way: "they happen on demand!"; > they might occur every now and then; two messages might occur at the > same logical time,... > > so all in all, messages are way more powerful than signals. > > unfortunately, CPU is not. > that is one reason, why the oh-so-powerful messages are not used for > signal processing. > > > > mfg.asdr > IOhannes > -- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 22: "Be less critical more often" _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list