> If you want shorter feedbacks than 64 samples within a patch, there is no way around reducing block size
i still have this itching doubt in that. i think what we're looking for is some real leap of imagination here. we are fine with having a block or 2 latency,,,so i'm imagining maybe there's some far out hack involving synchronised tabread~'s and delayed osc~'s, or something like that, which would somehow do it. >You may be able to optimize by putting only the very necessary (for the feedback loop) objects into the re-blocked subpatch. yeah that seems the most likely approach now. >if cpu is a limit, i guess the only solution is to create an external. this is probably the 2nd most likely solution. thanks guys for your ideas and help. On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Roman Haefeli <[email protected]> wrote: > If you want shorter feedbacks than 64 samples within a patch, there is > no way around reducing block size. You may be able to optimize by > putting only the very necessary (for the feedback loop) objects into the > re-blocked subpatch. > > Then there are some classes that do internal sample-size feedbacks, > like [rpole~] or [fexpr~]. While [fexpr~] is quite flexible, it may be > even more expensive than a subpatch with blocksize=1 (at least that's > what I remember when I compared two implementations, but this > observation might have been specific to that kind of problem). > > Roman > > On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 18:42 +0900, i go bananas wrote: > > 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] 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
