indeed, i guess i misunderstood altho im pretty sure i was getting sound without turning on the dsp on my mac, i will check that and report back
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:45 PM Christof Ressi <[email protected]> wrote: > > or at least on my system and in contradiction to the documentation the > dsp in the sub process MUST be on.... otherwise no sound > > actually, in the documentation it says: > > "We turn DSP on at load for convenience - control objects in this patch > will still work without it (unlike in the super-process, where DSP must be > on for time to move forward in the sub-process.)" > > this doesn't imply that you don't need to turn on DSP for audio objects - > on the contrary! > > But are you saying on your Mac you got sound *without* DSP being turned on > in the subprocess!? This would surprise me... > > Christof > > *Gesendet:* Montag, 16. September 2019 um 21:18 Uhr > *Von:* "iftah gabbai" <[email protected]> > *An:* Max <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Pd-List <[email protected]> > *Betreff:* Re: [PD] pd~ and rpi > ok, it works, apparently - or at least on my system and in contradiction > to the documentation the dsp in the sub process MUST be on.... otherwise no > sound > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 8:35 PM iftah gabbai <[email protected]> wrote: > >> hey all and thanks again for the response. ive actually updated to buster >> (incase you wonder why i havent so far, i just did not have a reason, its >> an embedded system and it was working great until i had the idea of using >> pd~ in order to free up the cpu) so im on 0.49 now but still no luck. a >> simple test patch sending and osc~ out to the dac~ does not produce sound, >> the mother patch has its dsp on (with delay and all) and i can print msgs >> via [stdout] so the sub patch is def loading. pd~ has the following >> arguments: [pd~ -ninsig 1 -noutsig 1 -fifo 20 -sr 48000]. it does work on >> my mac tho. while im at it, incase i ever get it to work, the docs states >> that the fifo latency is roundtrip in blocks. does this refer to pd block >> size of 64 time the number of fifo that i specify in the args? >> >> thanks again >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:18 PM Max <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 16.09.19 12:54, Christof Ressi wrote: >>> >> if you want to use pd~ to for example render a GEM patch you need to >>> >> switch on dsp in the subprocess at least for a moment. >>> > >>> > I don't think you need to do this (anymore). Control objects work fine >>> without DSP being turned on in the subprocess, like the documentation says. >>> >>> OP is using 0.47 on the RPi, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> [email protected] mailing list >>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> >> _______________________________________________ [email protected] > mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
