An approach I've been using successfully is to put a [switch~] and some
fade-in / fade-out mechanism (with appropriate delays to avoid audio
artifacts) in all subpatches that need to be exclusively active.
This way you can enable / disable them at will, and you will always only
consume the processing power of the currently enabled subpatch.
Going into the details, if you want to cross-fade between patches x and
y (instead of fading patch x out, then switch it off, then switch patch
y on, then fade it in), you might get some cpu peaks if both patches
consume a lot.
In many cases I don't need to cross-fade (sound continuity is not an
issue), so this is a solution I've used in several systems.
Hope this is relevant to the discussion and might be of some help.
Joseph
Le 21/08/2019 à 07:10, Alex Norman a écrit :
Yeah, maybe that is positive (reverb tails etc) but if not, you could
put the control on the other end, send your signal into every effect
in parallel and then mix in the one you want to hear selectively.
Alex
On August 20, 2019 7:06:10 PM PDT, Nick Porcaro <n...@porcaro.org> wrote:
Hey x_nor,
The problem with this approach is that you still have active
signal processing going in
each effect even if they are panned to zero (I assume) and you
couldn’t change the running
order of effect1 and effect2.
Thanks for thinking on it though. I’m going to study Miller’s
responses and let you all know it goes-
- Nick
On Aug 20, 2019, at 7:26 PM, x nor <x37v.a...@gmail.com
<mailto:x37v.a...@gmail.com>> wrote:
another approach could be to generate all the permutations of
your effects as abstractions and simply route audio to a
permutation selectively like you would with a speaker with an
N-channel panner.
[adc~]
| [pan control]
| |
[pan~ ]
| | ....
[effect1~] |
| [effect2~]
| |
[mixer~ ]
|
[dac~]
generating abstraction by editing files as text is pretty simple,
patching each abstraction to a panner is probably pretty simple
with your text editor as well.
though, maybe you don't have enough processing power for it?
but.. maybe you do?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:09 PM Miller Puckette <m...@ucsd.edu
<mailto:m...@ucsd.edu>> wrote:
actually I wrote that before I thought the whole thing out :)
No, if you "tick" a pdlib instance you tick all the patches
in it - so teh
way to get different patches in different orders is to call
up a separate
Pd instance for each of them, and use "adc~" and "dac~"
objects to get
audio in and out - that incurs zero latency (once you've
buffered 64
samples in the first place).
OR, within one pd instance, in libpd or in Pd, you can use
switch~ objects,
switched off, to control each sub-patch. Send the switch~
objects bangs in
whatever orders you wish. In this scenario, tabsend~ and
tabreceive~ would
be the simplemt way to pass signals between them. In libpd
you can do this
zero-latency (just stuff your inpuits into arrays before
sending all the
tick messages and copy the results out afterward).
Within the Pd app, you can do teh same thing but you incur
one tick extra
latency, because copying the autio into the tables has to
happen on the
previous tick form the one on which you get the outputs back.
If you like danger, you can write an external tilde object
that, for its
"dsp" action, sends a message to teh patch that can "tick"
the switch~
objects right in the middle of Pd/s DSP tick. This is not
part of Pd
because it could cause major confusion if general-purpose Pd
messages
got sent around in mid-tick.
cheers
Miller
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:55:58PM +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 12:09 -0700, Miller Puckette wrote:
> > I think the way to do this in libpd is to open them all
as separate
> > patches
> > within one instance of Pd (so that symbols are shared)
and use
> > "tabsend"
> > and "tabreceive" to route signals to/from them, using
shared names
> > like
> > "channel1" as both inputs and outputs so you can
rearrange them in
> > any
> > order.
> >
> > (Beware of allowing patches to _write_ andy of their
output channels
> > before
> > reading all the input channels, if you're re-using the
same channels
> > as
> > inputs and outputs :)
>
> Do I understand right: When loading them as separate
patches, you can
> dynamically re-order the signal flow by using
[tabsend~]/[tabreceive~]
> (which you could with abstractions, too) _without_ adding
latency?
>
> And: When changing the symbol of [tabsend~] or
[tabreceive~], is the
> DSP graph re-calculated?
>
> Roman
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev@lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-dev@lists.iem.at>
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-dev@lists.iem.at>
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-dev@lists.iem.at>
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
