That looks like it might work. Particularly with things like a patch when I may
want to turn parts of my texture on or off depending on inputting data. I could
cut out a whole synth algorithm etc.
Thanks for that.
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:23:05 +0100
Subject: Re: [PD] Quick processor question
From: pimas...@gmail.com
To: jbtur...@hotmail.com
CC: pd-list@iem.at
Hi,
I m not sure if i actually got your question, but if you're trying to "turn
off" the oscillator you should use the [switch~] object. It turns audio
computation off locally. This means that if you put it in your patch it will
turn audio computation on and off for the entire patch, but if you put it in a
subpatch (with, say, only your osc~ inside) it will only have an effect at the
subpatch level. this is a very useful object when it comes to limiting your CPU
load.
Pierre
2010/1/31 Andrew Faraday <jbtur...@hotmail.com>
Hey Folks
I'm aware that cutting the signal from an [osc~] will not actually reduce it's
processor drain, nor, to my knowledge, does the frequency affect CPU usage.
However, does anyone know if it'll take less processor, while not using the
output of the object, to give it an argument of 0? That is to say, while the
output has [*~] + 0 that zero is also set to the frequency of the [osc~] will
this be any more efficient?
Thanks
Andrew
Not got a Hotmail account? Sign-up now - Free
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_________________________________________________________________
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
