Really at that point, you’d have to be asking youself if there is any way
to use an external.

On Sunday, February 4, 2018, Dario Sanfilippo <sanfilippo.da...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi, Roman. I guess that fexpr~ implies block 1 but probably a few other
> things too: 256 instantiations of the feedback loop in my abstractions are
> around 44% load whereas the same number of [fexpr~ max($x1[0],
> $y[-1]*$x2[0])] are peaking at 95%.
>
> D
>
>
> On 4 February 2018 at 12:33, Roman Haefeli <reduz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fre, 2018-02-02 at 18:31 +0000, Dario Sanfilippo wrote:
>> > There's an implementation of a peak holder in this blog post: http://
>> > dariosanfilippo.tumblr.com/post/162523174771/lookahead-limiting-in-
>> > pure-data.
>>
>> BTW: the peak envelope part could be also implemented using fexpr~:
>>
>> [fexpr~ max($x1[0], ($y[-1]*$f2)]
>>
>> This has the advantage of not requiring a re-blocked subpatch with
>> blocksize=1. However, I wonder which is computationally less expensive.
>> Is there a rule of thumb whether [fexpr~] or [block~ 1] is faster?
>>
>> Roman
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/li
>> stinfo/pd-list
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Reply via email to