Le 08/01/2016 11:16, i go bananas a écrit :
i just tried upsampling, but it seems to hit the cpu harder than lowering 
blocksize, even.
my thought was : blocksize 1 AND upsampling (to improve audio quality)

upsampling a 64 block size is not interesting (in therm of cpu and quality)



and yeah, my friend just got a patch going using delwrite~ and vd~, which we 
can use at blocksize of 1, and it works...  but the hit on the cpu is harsh.

really looking for some way to do this at normal 64 sample blocksize at normal 
samplerate

if cpu is a limit, i guess the only solution is to create an external.
cheers
c


On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 7:03 PM, cyrille henry <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    oh, I forget to say that you can also upsample the subpatch in order to 
reduce the feedback latency.



    Le 08/01/2016 10:54, cyrille henry a écrit :

        s~ and r~ only work with 64 sample block, so you can't use them in this 
situation.
        but you can replace them using delwrite~ and delread~ with no delay, 
and force order to write before you read.

        cheers
        c

        Le 08/01/2016 10:42, i go bananas a écrit :

            Hi all, hope everyone's well.

            We're trying to implement a 4-op FM matrix with feedback, copying a 
patch my friend made in reaktor using a block size of 1 (sorry, don't know the 
full details of that, but he says he can get 1 sample delay for the feedback)

            Has anyone ever succeeded doing something like this in pd?  I know 
about the order forcing using subpatches like in G.05.execution.order help 
patch, but that doesn't seem like it will work here, as we still get DSP loop 
errors when trying to connect the output of one osc~ back into the frequency 
input of the others.

            I'm really looking for a solution that doesn't involve using 
blocksize of 1, and anyway, even doing that, still seems the only way to do 
feedback without getting DSP loop errors is with s~ / r~ pairs, which seem to 
only work at blocksize of 64 anyway?

            I don't mind adding a bit of latency to the whole system if there's 
maybe a hack to do this with tables or something,,,but am really stuck here 
wondering what to do.

            any ideas?

            cheers, Matt


            _______________________________________________
            [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> mailing list
            UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list


        _______________________________________________
        [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> mailing list
        UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list


    _______________________________________________
    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> mailing list
    UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list




_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list


_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Reply via email to