Quoth Mario Mey, on 07/08/2013 20:32:
/./ Ready-to-use, 2 FXs on: *26%* (there are 2 FXs always on, although
they are muted)
Are the effects that are always on [freeverb]? This could consume CPU,
see these threads:
http://www.mail-archive.com/pd-list@iem.at/msg27143.html
The FX that are on are not always the same. The system lets you select 2
FX (one FX for each Console. It can be complex, having more than one.
Eg: Delay/HPF). And, when the system starts, LPF are in both Consoles.
And no, I'm not using Freverb~. For reverb, I use st-pureverb, from DIY2
On 08/07/13 03:15, Miller Puckette wrote:
Hmmm... I was umnder the impression that, except for the overhead of block~
and switch~ objects, there would be no difference in DSP execution time
between a patch having lots of subpatches and one with the same amount of
computation all thrown in one
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 08:40 +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 08/07/13 03:15, Miller Puckette wrote:
Hmmm... I was umnder the impression that, except for the overhead of block~
and switch~ objects, there would be no difference in DSP execution time
between a patch having lots of
Thanks all for responding. After doing some tests, with suggestion from
mail-list and from (Maelstorm), I want to show you the current structure
of the complete patch (the same I wrote in forum):
/Main patch (meh_system.pd)//
//• OSC messaging (for the tablet), input and output (EQ), BPM,
Here's an idea ... perhaps your patch is generating hundreds of thousands
of symbols to instantiate all the abstractions, and this sould be making
gensym() run slowly. To test this possibility easily you could change
#define HASHSIZE 1024
to
#define HASHSIZE 65536
or so, recompile and see if
Oh... *compile*... I'm afraid of that word. Once (during some days), I
tried to compile Pd... but with no good results.
I will try to download the source, look for a easy-to-compile
tutorial... but, if it takes me so much time, I think I'll go on with
the current version of PdExt (0.43.4).
Oops, sorry - I think I'm leading you astray - it might take a long
time to figure out how to patch sources adn recompile Pd if you aren't
already habituated to compiling software.
Anyway, I don't really know that it's gensym() that's taking the 6%
of your processor - that's just a guess. So I'm
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Roman Haefeli reduz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 08:40 +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 08/07/13 03:15, Miller Puckette wrote:
Hmmm... I was umnder the impression that, except for the overhead of
block~
and switch~ objects, there would be
-list@iem.at
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 21:48
Subject: Re: [PD] How to reduce CPU use on unused subpatches-abstracts?
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Roman Haefeli reduz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 08:40 +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 08/07/13 03:15, Miller Puckette
/
From: Mario Mey mario...@gmail.com
To: J Oliver jaime.oliv...@gmail.com
Cc: pd-list@iem.at
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 3:15
Subject: Re: [PD] How to reduce CPU use on unused subpatches-abstracts?
Hi, J. Thanks for the response. Following some suggestion (from you
2013, 3:15
Subject: Re: [PD] How to reduce CPU use on unused subpatches-abstracts?
Hi, J. Thanks for the response. Following some suggestion (from you,
Maelstorm, Servando Barreiro), I made some tests. I took the dare to
post your mail in the thread... maybe it's better to post
Hi, there... I really need some help.
I'm working on a looper-multi-effects (big) patch. It has more than,
more or less, 100 stereo FXs. They are all inside the patch as
abstracts. But, to avoid them to consume CPU, each one has a [switch~ 0]
if it is not working. So, there're only two FX at
Hi Mario
Check [switch~] and its help patch.
Roman
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 09:03 -0300, Mario Mey wrote:
Hi, there... I really need some help.
I'm working on a looper-multi-effects (big) patch. It has more than,
more or less, 100 stereo FXs. They are all inside the patch as
abstracts.
Thanks, Roman, but I'm already using [switch~] inside each FX, to stop
processing the signal. I learned it some time ago, from here:
http://puredata.hurleur.com/viewtopic.php?pid=35939#p35939
But I think that [receive~] and [throw~] are still using CPU.
I didn't try to use inlet~ and outlet~,
Hi Mario,
There is a thread somewhere about connections vs. s/r throw/catch, don't have
time right now to search for it, but I'm sure it is there. If I remember
correctly the overhead is not that big and you don't want to be connecting all
that stuff by hand.
In any case, there are other
Hi, J. Thanks for the response. Following some suggestion (from you,
Maelstorm, Servando Barreiro), I made some tests. I took the dare to
post your mail in the thread... maybe it's better to post there, if
anyone has the same problem or just wants to learn.
Here is the thread:
17 matches
Mail list logo
