That's certainly the way to go for efficiency: 256 rpole~ objects are about
10% load against 44% load of the PD-implemented counterpart.
On 4 February 2018 at 14:41, Matt Davey <hard....@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>
>> 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,
>> $y[-1]*$x2)] are peaking at 95%.
>> 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($x1, ($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?
>>> Pdemail@example.com mailing list
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/li
Pdfirstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->