remember, that a [loadbang] in a child-patch fires after a [loadbang] in
the parent patch (this is by design).
It's really the other way around. I know it's just a typo, I just wanted
to point it out for the people following this thread.
you could try to call [samplerate~] whenever the DSP is turned on.
something like:
[r pd]
|
[route dsp]
|
| [loadbang]
|/
[bang(
|
[samplerate~]
|
[change]
|
Even better:
[r pd-dsp-started]
|
| [loadbang]
|/
[bang(
|
[samplerate~]
|
[change]
|
"pd dsp" is only sent when switching DSP on *manually*, but Pd will
always send a bang to "pd-dsp-started" whenever the DSP state changes
(e.g. by messaging the [block~] object). If you only use the samplerate
value in DSP calculations, you can even omit the [loadbang].
"pd-dsp-started" / "pd-dsp-stopped" is a rather recent addition (maybe
Pd 0.49? I'm not sure). It is also very useful to prevent the "angry
[vline~]" *)
Christof
*) When you send messages to the [vline~] object without DSP running,
they will gradually pile up and eventually eat all your CPU.
"pd-dsp-started"/"pd-dsp-stopped" + [spigot] help to prevent this.
On 18.02.2020 10:30, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 2/18/20 8:43 AM, Matt Davey wrote:
Just wondering how cpu intensive the samplerate~ object is?
Is it just receiving from a value inside of pd, or does it need to retrieve
directly from hardware every time?
[samplerate~] reports the internal samplerate of the Pd process, and
trusts that the hardware and Pd agree on that (this is mostly the case,
but sometimes not; e.g. when a hardware/audio-API doesn't support the
requested samplerate and fails to report that back).
We've been running into issues with [loadbang] to samplerate~ and having
the rate change after our loadbangs, so were considering using [bang~].
[samplerate~] also tries to take resampling into account (as defined
with [block~])
i could imagine some glitches at loadbang time if you have a weird (that
involves changing the block-setup with [block~] resp [switch~])
remember, that a [loadbang] in a child-patch fires after a [loadbang] in
the parent patch (this is by design).
if you have a child-patch that uses [loadbang] to query [samplerate~],
and in a parent-patch you use another [loadbang] to change the
re-sampling, then the re-sampling will change *after* you have queried
the samplerate.
Would that be reasonable, even if we might have to do it a few
hundred times?
this seems like overkill.
you could try to call [samplerate~] whenever the DSP is turned on.
something like:
[r pd]
|
[route dsp]
|
| [loadbang]
|/
[bang(
|
[samplerate~]
|
[change]
|
gfmdsar
IOhannes
_______________________________________________
[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
