I think you can also be clever about the mixing and the outputs... In my case, I usually end up with an output abstraction to [dac~]:
[receive~ out$1] | [*~] <--- some gain control input | [dac~ $1] A use case would be the zirk_id -> zirk_speaker -> zirk_output handling in the ZKM Zirkonium server patches: https://github.com/ZKM-IMA/ZirkoniumSpatializationServer <https://github.com/ZKM-IMA/ZirkoniumSpatializationServer> (It's currently macOS-only as it includes custom binaries for the spatialization algorithms. I will probably fix this by fall.) In this case, Zirkonium has the following layout: 64 live input channels 64 input sound files (with 8 channels) 64 IDs aka objects mapping between input channels (live or sound file) and spatialization algorithms to virtual speakers 64 virtual speakers wich are mapped to outputs 64 output dac~ wrappers The ID objects & spat algo wrappers use additional clones internally to map each channel to all of the virtual speakers. I imagine a setup like this could work for you. A [zirk_vbap] object, for example, has an internal clone with [zirk_dispatcher]s which handle the connections between the named sends~/receives~. It's a little clunky but it works. I think a bunch of giant 64-channel output objects would also be clunky and also work, but in a different way. :) > On Jun 5, 2020, at 8:43 PM, baptiste chatel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Clever, but you have to do a repetitive error-prone lengthy clicky process > either on the send side or on the receive side. > Since in my case i have four 16-tracks sends to a 64 by 16 matrix (3rd order > ambisonics monitoring), i mitigated the issue by making an abstraction > containing 16 settable sends, taking a float as an argument for the first > send number. On the other side, i still had to make 64 unique receives... > > Le ven. 5 juin 2020 à 20:23, Dan Wilcox <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : > Your abstraction can have a named [send~] which you can receive into your > matrix. Use the $1 id assigned by clone to differentiate the sends, ie. > > In abstraction: > > | > [send~ out$1] > > For matrix: > > [receive~ out1] [receive~ out2] [receive~ out3] > | | | > [matrix - - ...] > > etc > > In this way, the [clone] itself has no outputs, but you have all of the > outputs via [send~]. I use this approach very often. > >> On Jun 5, 2020, at 7:49 PM, [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:20:36 +0200 >> From: baptiste chatel <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> To: Pd-List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: [PD] [clone] with individual signal inlets/outlets exposed ? >> Message-ID: >> <cabrnplyvghrrv-+9wdj2p8nnzenqdwegg-to7yfhejw5l1e...@mail.gmail.com >> <mailto:cabrnplyvghrrv-+9wdj2p8nnzenqdwegg-to7yfhejw5l1e...@mail.gmail.com>> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Would it be possible to have a [clone] option that allows clones individual >> signal inlets/outlets to be exposed ? >> >> An example : i need to make 64 of the following patch : >> [receive~ thing-$1] >> | >> [outlet~] >> that should go to a matrix, $1 in [1:64]. >> >> [clone] is useless because it will sum all outputs and expose only one, >> since the cloned patch has one output. >> >> I could do it with dynamic patching, but as practical as it could be, it is >> pretty convoluted to use for such a simple need. >> >> >> Baptiste > > -------- > Dan Wilcox > @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> > danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> > robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/> > > > -------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
