Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Lucas Cordiviola]

We have a specialist on that.

Fred Jan.

Fred, what do you say?



Mensaje telepatico asistido por maquinas.



From: Pd-list <pd-list-boun...@lists.iem.at> on behalf of Dan Wilcox 
<danomat...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 5:10 PM
To: Roman Haefeli
Cc: Pd-List
Subject: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

Maybe that can be resurrected, updated, and added to deken? :)

On Feb 28, 2017, at 9:11 AM, 
pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at<mailto:pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at> wrote:

From: Roman Haefeli <reduz...@gmail.com<mailto:reduz...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?
Date: February 28, 2017 at 9:10:51 AM MST
To: pd-list@lists.iem.at<mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at>


I totally forgot about [sndfiler]. It's actually a threaded version of
[soundfiler].

http://grh.mur.at/software/sndfiler.html


Roman


Dan Wilcox
@danomatika<http://twitter.com/danomatika>
danomatika.com<http://danomatika.com>
robotcowboy.com<http://robotcowboy.com>



___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Dan Wilcox]

Maybe that can be resurrected, updated, and added to deken? :)

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 9:11 AM, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote:
> 
> From: Roman Haefeli <reduz...@gmail.com <mailto:reduz...@gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?
> Date: February 28, 2017 at 9:10:51 AM MST
> To: pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at>
> 
> 
> I totally forgot about [sndfiler]. It's actually a threaded version of
> [soundfiler].
> 
> http://grh.mur.at/software/sndfiler.html 
> <http://grh.mur.at/software/sndfiler.html>
> 
> 
> Roman


Dan Wilcox
@danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika>
danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/>
robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>



___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Roman Haefeli]

I totally forgot about [sndfiler]. It's actually a threaded version of
[soundfiler].

http://grh.mur.at/software/sndfiler.html


Roman

On Die, 2017-02-28 at 17:05 +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Die, 2017-02-28 at 12:37 -0300, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> > 
> > 2017-02-28 9:41 GMT-03:00 José Rafael Subía Valdez  > ai
> > l.com>:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If anyone has another idea
> > > 
> > I still think an external is a good/better idea, but looks like
> > it's
> > just me... 
> Why do you think that? I, too, believe an external that offloads the
> 'dangerous' (potentially causing drop-outs) operations to a separate
> thread would be a desirable solution. 
> 
> People are just thinking about workarounds since we don't seem to
> have
> such an external yet (or do we?).
> 
> I absolutely don't buy that determinism narrative that grew strong on
> this list. If you asked me and if I had the power and capability to
> design such stuff, I'd break determinism for a lot of things, like
> dealing with filesystem, networking (fortunately solved), and even
> DSP
> graph redrawing (I may be just talking here without a clue what
> architectural impact this would have). I see no value in upholding
> determinism in a real time language like Pd. I see no point in
> emulating an ideal world, when the delta between ideal and real world
> is experienced so harshly. Emulating an ideal world may make sense
> for
> offline rendering, but I doubt that is the main use case of Pd.
> 
> ;tldr: I'm with you, Alex.
> 
> Roman 

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[José Rafael Subía Valdez]

I think that is the best idea... glad to help with what I can, but my C
skills are very low.

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres 
wrote:

> 2017-02-28 9:41 GMT-03:00 José Rafael Subía Valdez  >:
>
>>
>> If anyone has another idea
>>
>
> I still think an external is a good/better idea, but looks like it's just
> me...
>



-- 
José Rafael Subía Valdez
www.jrsv.net
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

2017-02-28 9:41 GMT-03:00 José Rafael Subía Valdez :

>
> If anyone has another idea
>

I still think an external is a good/better idea, but looks like it's just
me...
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Christof Ressi]

> I do not have much time to figure out to solve the problem before having to hand in the score and patch.

 

I see :-). Anyway, it kind of looks more like a problem with your latency settings. in the future you might also experiment with [pd~] to make use of your multi-core processor. this way you can also have different latency settings for different parts of your patch. or work with several instances of Pd.

 

also, working with large ffts can easily lead to drop outs because of CPU spikes (which one doesn't see in CPU meters because the do some averaging), so it's a good idea to put them into another process or instance if there's some other CPU heavy thing going on at the same time.

 

good luck!

 

Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 um 14:17 Uhr
Von: "José Rafael Subía Valdez" <jsubiaval...@gmail.com>
An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at>
Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?


Yeah, I tweaked parameters, and actually to follow up on the last message. All of them still cause drops. Some settings more sporadically than others. I have decided to take this process out as I do not have much time to figure out how to solve the problem before having to hand in the score and patch. But I will keep on studying this.
 

once again thank you all for the help.

 

cheers


 
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Christof Ressi <christof.re...@gmx.at> wrote:

> both Christof's and Jack's solution still create audio drops.

did you actually tweek the parameter?? there *must* be a setting where you don't get dropouts but the question is rather if this setting is acceptable for you.
 
 

Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 um 13:41 Uhr
Von: "José Rafael Subía Valdez" <jsubiaval...@gmail.com>
An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at>
Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

Okay, update with all the solutions everyone has chipped in. (THANKS AGAIN)
 
both Christof's and Jack's solution still create audio drops. Now I am testing Jean-Yves's patch and seems to do the trick. 
 
again, thank you all. If anyone has another idea, I will be interested in looking at other solutions (just for the heck of it).
 
ps. Thanks Jack, I will try changing the [block] 
 
cheers
 
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Christof Ressi <christof.re...@gmx.at[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at]> wrote:That's what I meant with:

> [soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can simply ignore it by setting the log level to 0.

I know why it happens but it doesn't really matter. Despite its flashy read appearance it's just a warning which can be safely ignored.

The patch itself should work. Tweek the amount of samples per DSP block to find a setting which works for you without dropouts.



On 28.02.2017 12:54, José Rafael Subía Valdez wrote:Hey Christof and Jean-Yves Gratius

Thanks, I am opening them up just now. Christof, your patch gives me these errors when I try it out:

soundfiler_read: truncated to 44100 elements -> this one is repeated by the amount of blocks it will take to completely load the sound file
resize failed

any idea why?? (before I start dismantling it?)

Cheers Guys, much appreciated.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Christof Ressi <christof.re...@gmx.at[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at] <mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at]>> wrote:

    José, I think I have a solution which might work for you. see my
    attached patch. it's not a clean abstraction but rather
    demonstrates the principle.

    basically, I spread the loading of the soundfile over several DSP
    blocks and you can adjust how many samples to load in one block.
    44100 samples, for example, works fine for me (no dropouts), which
    means I can load 1 second of audio in 1.5 ms or 10 minutes in 900 ms!

    note that it needs soundfile_info from iemlib.

    [soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can
    simply ignore it by setting the log level to 0.

    Anyway, I'm really thinking of turning it into an external because
    there some inefficiencies I could get rid off. Most notably, I
    have to use an intermediate buffer plus |read -resize -maxsize
    ...( to prevent [soundfiler] from reading the file always till the
    end because it doesn't have -nframes as an read option (which is
    unfortunate).

    Hope that helps!

    Christof

    Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 um 07:42 Uhr
    Von: "José Rafael Subía Valdez" <jsubiaval...@gmail.com[mailto:jsubiaval...@gmail.com]
    <mailto:jsubiaval...@gmail.com[mailto:jsubiaval...@gmail.com]>>
    An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at[mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at] <mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at[mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at]>>
    Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

    Thank you all..

    but I am developing patches that are handed to performers and
    should work out of the box, I can't depend on the expensive
    machines and RAM-D

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[José Rafael Subía Valdez]

Yeah, I tweaked parameters, and actually to follow up on the last message.
All of them still cause drops. Some settings more sporadically than others.
I have decided to take this process out as I do not have much time to
figure out how to solve the problem before having to hand in the score and
patch. But I will keep on studying this.

once again thank you all for the help.

cheers

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Christof Ressi <christof.re...@gmx.at>
wrote:

> > both Christof's and Jack's solution still create audio drops.
>
> did you actually tweek the parameter?? there *must* be a setting where you
> don't get dropouts but the question is rather if this setting is acceptable
> for you.
>
>
>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 um 13:41 Uhr
> Von: "José Rafael Subía Valdez" <jsubiaval...@gmail.com>
> An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at>
> Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?
>
> Okay, update with all the solutions everyone has chipped in. (THANKS AGAIN)
>
> both Christof's and Jack's solution still create audio drops. Now I am
> testing Jean-Yves's patch and seems to do the trick.
>
> again, thank you all. If anyone has another idea, I will be interested in
> looking at other solutions (just for the heck of it).
>
> ps. Thanks Jack, I will try changing the [block]
>
> cheers
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Christof Ressi <christof.re...@gmx.at
> [mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at]> wrote:That's what I meant with:
>
> > [soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can simply
> ignore it by setting the log level to 0.
>
> I know why it happens but it doesn't really matter. Despite its flashy
> read appearance it's just a warning which can be safely ignored.
>
> The patch itself should work. Tweek the amount of samples per DSP block to
> find a setting which works for you without dropouts.
>
>
>
> On 28.02.2017 12:54, José Rafael Subía Valdez wrote:Hey Christof and
> Jean-Yves Gratius
>
> Thanks, I am opening them up just now. Christof, your patch gives me these
> errors when I try it out:
>
> soundfiler_read: truncated to 44100 elements -> this one is repeated by
> the amount of blocks it will take to completely load the sound file
> resize failed
>
> any idea why?? (before I start dismantling it?)
>
> Cheers Guys, much appreciated.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Christof Ressi <christof.re...@gmx.at
> [mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at] <mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at[mailto:
> christof.re...@gmx.at]>> wrote:
>
> José, I think I have a solution which might work for you. see my
> attached patch. it's not a clean abstraction but rather
> demonstrates the principle.
>
> basically, I spread the loading of the soundfile over several DSP
> blocks and you can adjust how many samples to load in one block.
> 44100 samples, for example, works fine for me (no dropouts), which
> means I can load 1 second of audio in 1.5 ms or 10 minutes in 900 ms!
>
> note that it needs soundfile_info from iemlib.
>
> [soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can
> simply ignore it by setting the log level to 0.
>
> Anyway, I'm really thinking of turning it into an external because
> there some inefficiencies I could get rid off. Most notably, I
> have to use an intermediate buffer plus |read -resize -maxsize
> ...( to prevent [soundfiler] from reading the file always till the
> end because it doesn't have -nframes as an read option (which is
> unfortunate).
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> Christof
>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 um 07:42 Uhr
> Von: "José Rafael Subía Valdez" <jsubiaval...@gmail.com[mailto:
> jsubiaval...@gmail.com]
> <mailto:jsubiaval...@gmail.com[mailto:jsubiaval...@gmail.com]>>
> An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at[mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at]
> <mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at[mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at]>>
> Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?
>
> Thank you all..
>
> but I am developing patches that are handed to performers and
> should work out of the box, I can't depend on the expensive
> machines and RAM-DISK settings because I can not tell my
> performers - you need to do all of this and invest in your
> computer first before you play my music. Why? because this is
> something I am doing for my PhD. Yes..saying "buy a fancy computer
> with lots of RAM" is easier in Europe or the US than in other
> places of the world and that is not my aim. I am trying to squeeze
> the best solutions on any type of machine and to provide people
&g

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Christof Ressi]

> both Christof's and Jack's solution still create audio drops. 

did you actually tweek the parameter?? there *must* be a setting where you 
don't get dropouts but the question is rather if this setting is acceptable for 
you. 
 
 

Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 um 13:41 Uhr
Von: "José Rafael Subía Valdez" <jsubiaval...@gmail.com>
An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at>
Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

Okay, update with all the solutions everyone has chipped in. (THANKS AGAIN)
 
both Christof's and Jack's solution still create audio drops. Now I am testing 
Jean-Yves's patch and seems to do the trick. 
 
again, thank you all. If anyone has another idea, I will be interested in 
looking at other solutions (just for the heck of it).
 
ps. Thanks Jack, I will try changing the [block] 
 
cheers
 
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Christof Ressi 
<christof.re...@gmx.at[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at]> wrote:That's what I meant 
with:

> [soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can simply ignore it 
> by setting the log level to 0.

I know why it happens but it doesn't really matter. Despite its flashy read 
appearance it's just a warning which can be safely ignored.

The patch itself should work. Tweek the amount of samples per DSP block to find 
a setting which works for you without dropouts.



On 28.02.2017 12:54, José Rafael Subía Valdez wrote:Hey Christof and Jean-Yves 
Gratius

Thanks, I am opening them up just now. Christof, your patch gives me these 
errors when I try it out:

soundfiler_read: truncated to 44100 elements -> this one is repeated by the 
amount of blocks it will take to completely load the sound file
resize failed

any idea why?? (before I start dismantling it?)

Cheers Guys, much appreciated.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Christof Ressi 
<christof.re...@gmx.at[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at] 
<mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at]>> wrote:

    José, I think I have a solution which might work for you. see my
    attached patch. it's not a clean abstraction but rather
    demonstrates the principle.

    basically, I spread the loading of the soundfile over several DSP
    blocks and you can adjust how many samples to load in one block.
    44100 samples, for example, works fine for me (no dropouts), which
    means I can load 1 second of audio in 1.5 ms or 10 minutes in 900 ms!

    note that it needs soundfile_info from iemlib.

    [soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can
    simply ignore it by setting the log level to 0.

    Anyway, I'm really thinking of turning it into an external because
    there some inefficiencies I could get rid off. Most notably, I
    have to use an intermediate buffer plus |read -resize -maxsize
    ...( to prevent [soundfiler] from reading the file always till the
    end because it doesn't have -nframes as an read option (which is
    unfortunate).

    Hope that helps!

    Christof

    Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 um 07:42 Uhr
    Von: "José Rafael Subía Valdez" 
<jsubiaval...@gmail.com[mailto:jsubiaval...@gmail.com]
    <mailto:jsubiaval...@gmail.com[mailto:jsubiaval...@gmail.com]>>
    An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at[mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at] 
<mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at[mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at]>>
    Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

    Thank you all..

    but I am developing patches that are handed to performers and
    should work out of the box, I can't depend on the expensive
    machines and RAM-DISK settings because I can not tell my
    performers - you need to do all of this and invest in your
    computer first before you play my music. Why? because this is
    something I am doing for my PhD. Yes..saying "buy a fancy computer
    with lots of RAM" is easier in Europe or the US than in other
    places of the world and that is not my aim. I am trying to squeeze
    the best solutions on any type of machine and to provide people
    that are not necessary computer music users with the friendliest
    setup I can think of.

    the computer I am programming this is a iMac from 2007 with 4 gb
    of RAM. I have many processes including FFT, but thanks to switch~
    I am able to optimize the patch. I just have this problem that
    causes audio drops when loading each sample. So not really wanna
    discuss finances.

    Thanks again


    On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Christof Ressi
    <christof.re...@gmx.at[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at]
    
<mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at]>[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at]
    <mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at]>]> wrote:> i 
keep forgetting of
    abominations like running a 32-bit Pd on a 64-bit OS.

    Actually, the average Windows user will have more 32-bit apps than
    64-bit apps running on their 

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[José Rafael Subía Valdez]

Okay, update with all the solutions everyone has chipped in. (THANKS AGAIN)

both Christof's and Jack's solution still create audio drops. Now I am
testing Jean-Yves's patch and seems to do the trick.

again, thank you all. If anyone has another idea, I will be interested in
looking at other solutions (just for the heck of it).

ps. Thanks Jack, I will try changing the [block]

cheers

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Christof Ressi <christof.re...@gmx.at>
wrote:

> That's what I meant with:
>
> > [soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can simply
> ignore it by setting the log level to 0.
>
> I know why it happens but it doesn't really matter. Despite its flashy
> read appearance it's just a warning which can be safely ignored.
>
> The patch itself should work. Tweek the amount of samples per DSP block to
> find a setting which works for you without dropouts.
>
>
>
> On 28.02.2017 12:54, José Rafael Subía Valdez wrote:
>
>> Hey Christof and Jean-Yves Gratius
>>
>> Thanks, I am opening them up just now. Christof, your patch gives me
>> these errors when I try it out:
>>
>> soundfiler_read: truncated to 44100 elements -> this one is repeated by
>> the amount of blocks it will take to completely load the sound file
>> resize failed
>>
>> any idea why?? (before I start dismantling it?)
>>
>> Cheers Guys, much appreciated.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Christof Ressi <christof.re...@gmx.at
>> <mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at>> wrote:
>>
>> José, I think I have a solution which might work for you. see my
>> attached patch. it's not a clean abstraction but rather
>> demonstrates the principle.
>>
>> basically, I spread the loading of the soundfile over several DSP
>> blocks and you can adjust how many samples to load in one block.
>> 44100 samples, for example, works fine for me (no dropouts), which
>> means I can load 1 second of audio in 1.5 ms or 10 minutes in 900 ms!
>>
>> note that it needs soundfile_info from iemlib.
>>
>> [soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can
>> simply ignore it by setting the log level to 0.
>>
>> Anyway, I'm really thinking of turning it into an external because
>> there some inefficiencies I could get rid off. Most notably, I
>> have to use an intermediate buffer plus |read -resize -maxsize
>> ...( to prevent [soundfiler] from reading the file always till the
>> end because it doesn't have -nframes as an read option (which is
>> unfortunate).
>>
>> Hope that helps!
>>
>> Christof
>>
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 um 07:42 Uhr
>> Von: "José Rafael Subía Valdez" <jsubiaval...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:jsubiaval...@gmail.com>>
>> An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at>>
>> Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?
>>
>> Thank you all..
>>
>> but I am developing patches that are handed to performers and
>> should work out of the box, I can't depend on the expensive
>> machines and RAM-DISK settings because I can not tell my
>> performers - you need to do all of this and invest in your
>> computer first before you play my music. Why? because this is
>> something I am doing for my PhD. Yes..saying "buy a fancy computer
>> with lots of RAM" is easier in Europe or the US than in other
>> places of the world and that is not my aim. I am trying to squeeze
>> the best solutions on any type of machine and to provide people
>> that are not necessary computer music users with the friendliest
>> setup I can think of.
>>
>> the computer I am programming this is a iMac from 2007 with 4 gb
>> of RAM. I have many processes including FFT, but thanks to switch~
>> I am able to optimize the patch. I just have this problem that
>> causes audio drops when loading each sample. So not really wanna
>> discuss finances.
>>
>> Thanks again
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Christof Ressi
>> <christof.re...@gmx.at
>> <mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at>[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at
>> <mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at>]> wrote:> i keep forgetting of
>> abominations like running a 32-bit Pd on a 64-bit OS.
>>
>> Actually, the average Windows user will have more 32-bit apps than
>> 64-bit apps running on their 64-bit OS ;-).
>> And most 

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Jack]

Le 28/02/2017 à 13:23, José Rafael Subía Valdez a écrit :
> Hello Jack,
> 
> thanks for sharing, it still causes audio drops. Does it work for you? 

Yes it works.
Try to set the last value in [block~] to 512 (instead of 1024).
++

Jack


> 
> cheers?
> 
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Jack <j...@rybn.org
> <mailto:j...@rybn.org>> wrote:
> 
> I guess Martin was more talking about this solution (see patch
> attached).
> ++
> 
> Jack
> 
> 
> 
> Le 28/02/2017 à 12:35, Christof Ressi a écrit :
> > José, I think I have a solution which might work for you. see my
> attached patch. it's not a clean abstraction but rather demonstrates
> the principle.
> >
> > basically, I spread the loading of the soundfile over several DSP
> blocks and you can adjust how many samples to load in one block.
> 44100 samples, for example, works fine for me (no dropouts), which
> means I can load 1 second of audio in 1.5 ms or 10 minutes in 900 ms!
> >
> > note that it needs soundfile_info from iemlib.
> >
> > [soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can
> simply ignore it by setting the log level to 0.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm really thinking of turning it into an external because
> there some inefficiencies I could get rid off. Most notably, I have
> to use an intermediate buffer plus |read -resize -maxsize ...( to
> prevent [soundfiler] from reading the file always till the end
> because it doesn't have -nframes as an read option (which is
> unfortunate).
> >
> > Hope that helps!
> >
> > Christof
> >
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 um 07:42 Uhr
> > Von: "José Rafael Subía Valdez" <jsubiaval...@gmail.com
> <mailto:jsubiaval...@gmail.com>>
> > An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at>>
> > Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?
> >
> > Thank you all..
> >
> > but I am developing patches that are handed to performers and
> should work out of the box, I can't depend on the expensive machines
> and RAM-DISK settings because I can not tell my performers - you
> need to do all of this and invest in your computer first before you
> play my music. Why? because this is something I am doing for my PhD.
> Yes..saying "buy a fancy computer with lots of RAM" is easier in
> Europe or the US than in other places of the world and that is not
> my aim. I am trying to squeeze the best solutions on any type of
> machine and to provide people that are not necessary computer music
> users with the friendliest setup I can think of.
> >
> > the computer I am programming this is a iMac from 2007 with 4 gb
> of RAM. I have many processes including FFT, but thanks to switch~ I
> am able to optimize the patch. I just have this problem that causes
> audio drops when loading each sample. So not really wanna discuss
> finances.
> >
> > Thanks again
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Christof Ressi
> <christof.re...@gmx.at
> <mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at>[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at
> <mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at>]> wrote:> i keep forgetting of
> abominations like running a 32-bit Pd on a 64-bit OS.
> >
> > Actually, the average Windows user will have more 32-bit apps than
> 64-bit apps running on their 64-bit OS ;-).
> > And most Pd users on 64-bit Windows will have a 32-bit Pd  because
> Miller doesn't offer 64-bit binaries yet and building from source is
> still impossible (at least with MinGW).
> >
> >> decent OSs should be able to manage more than a total 4GB of RAM even
> >> when the entire OS is 32bit (a single application will not be able to
> >> address more than 2^32 bytes though; but it should get you closer to
> >> really having 4GB, rather than 2GB)
> >
> > on 32-bit Windows you usually get 2 GB per process - or 3 GB with
> some tricks*. on 64-bit Windows it's 2 GB for 32-bit processes
> unless you compile with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set, then you
> get 4 GB.
> >
> > here are the boring details:
> 
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx?ranMID=24542=TnL5HPStwNw=TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g=(94e0b4bf83daa242de97c8bfb531e5d9)(256380)(2459594)(TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g)()[https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85)

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Christof Ressi]

That's what I meant with:

> [soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can simply 
ignore it by setting the log level to 0.


I know why it happens but it doesn't really matter. Despite its flashy 
read appearance it's just a warning which can be safely ignored.


The patch itself should work. Tweek the amount of samples per DSP block 
to find a setting which works for you without dropouts.




On 28.02.2017 12:54, José Rafael Subía Valdez wrote:

Hey Christof and Jean-Yves Gratius

Thanks, I am opening them up just now. Christof, your patch gives me 
these errors when I try it out:


soundfiler_read: truncated to 44100 elements -> this one is repeated 
by the amount of blocks it will take to completely load the sound file

resize failed

any idea why?? (before I start dismantling it?)

Cheers Guys, much appreciated.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Christof Ressi 
<christof.re...@gmx.at <mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at>> wrote:


José, I think I have a solution which might work for you. see my
attached patch. it's not a clean abstraction but rather
demonstrates the principle.

basically, I spread the loading of the soundfile over several DSP
blocks and you can adjust how many samples to load in one block.
44100 samples, for example, works fine for me (no dropouts), which
means I can load 1 second of audio in 1.5 ms or 10 minutes in 900 ms!

note that it needs soundfile_info from iemlib.

[soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can
simply ignore it by setting the log level to 0.

Anyway, I'm really thinking of turning it into an external because
there some inefficiencies I could get rid off. Most notably, I
have to use an intermediate buffer plus |read -resize -maxsize
...( to prevent [soundfiler] from reading the file always till the
end because it doesn't have -nframes as an read option (which is
unfortunate).

Hope that helps!

Christof

Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 um 07:42 Uhr
Von: "José Rafael Subía Valdez" <jsubiaval...@gmail.com
<mailto:jsubiaval...@gmail.com>>
An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at>>
Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

Thank you all..

but I am developing patches that are handed to performers and
should work out of the box, I can't depend on the expensive
machines and RAM-DISK settings because I can not tell my
performers - you need to do all of this and invest in your
computer first before you play my music. Why? because this is
something I am doing for my PhD. Yes..saying "buy a fancy computer
with lots of RAM" is easier in Europe or the US than in other
places of the world and that is not my aim. I am trying to squeeze
the best solutions on any type of machine and to provide people
that are not necessary computer music users with the friendliest
setup I can think of.

the computer I am programming this is a iMac from 2007 with 4 gb
of RAM. I have many processes including FFT, but thanks to switch~
I am able to optimize the patch. I just have this problem that
causes audio drops when loading each sample. So not really wanna
discuss finances.

Thanks again


On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Christof Ressi
<christof.re...@gmx.at
<mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at>[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at
<mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at>]> wrote:> i keep forgetting of
abominations like running a 32-bit Pd on a 64-bit OS.

Actually, the average Windows user will have more 32-bit apps than
64-bit apps running on their 64-bit OS ;-).
And most Pd users on 64-bit Windows will have a 32-bit Pd  because
Miller doesn't offer 64-bit binaries yet and building from source
is still impossible (at least with MinGW).

> decent OSs should be able to manage more than a total 4GB of RAM
even
> when the entire OS is 32bit (a single application will not be
able to
> address more than 2^32 bytes though; but it should get you closer to
> really having 4GB, rather than 2GB)

on 32-bit Windows you usually get 2 GB per process - or 3 GB with
some tricks*. on 64-bit Windows it's 2 GB for 32-bit processes
unless you compile with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set, then
you get 4 GB.

here are the boring details:

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx?ranMID=24542=TnL5HPStwNw=TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g=(94e0b4bf83daa242de97c8bfb531e5d9)(256380)(2459594)(TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g)()[https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx?ranMID=24542=TnL5HPStwNw=TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g=(94e0b4bf83daa242de97c8bfb531e5d9)(256380)(2459594)(TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g)()]

<https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx?ranMID=24

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[José Rafael Subía Valdez]

Hello Jack,

thanks for sharing, it still causes audio drops. Does it work for you?

cheers?

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Jack <j...@rybn.org> wrote:

> I guess Martin was more talking about this solution (see patch attached).
> ++
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> Le 28/02/2017 à 12:35, Christof Ressi a écrit :
> > José, I think I have a solution which might work for you. see my
> attached patch. it's not a clean abstraction but rather demonstrates the
> principle.
> >
> > basically, I spread the loading of the soundfile over several DSP blocks
> and you can adjust how many samples to load in one block. 44100 samples,
> for example, works fine for me (no dropouts), which means I can load 1
> second of audio in 1.5 ms or 10 minutes in 900 ms!
> >
> > note that it needs soundfile_info from iemlib.
> >
> > [soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can simply
> ignore it by setting the log level to 0.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm really thinking of turning it into an external because there
> some inefficiencies I could get rid off. Most notably, I have to use an
> intermediate buffer plus |read -resize -maxsize ...( to prevent
> [soundfiler] from reading the file always till the end because it doesn't
> have -nframes as an read option (which is unfortunate).
> >
> > Hope that helps!
> >
> > Christof
> >
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 um 07:42 Uhr
> > Von: "José Rafael Subía Valdez" <jsubiaval...@gmail.com>
> > An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at>
> > Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?
> >
> > Thank you all..
> >
> > but I am developing patches that are handed to performers and should
> work out of the box, I can't depend on the expensive machines and RAM-DISK
> settings because I can not tell my performers - you need to do all of this
> and invest in your computer first before you play my music. Why? because
> this is something I am doing for my PhD. Yes..saying "buy a fancy computer
> with lots of RAM" is easier in Europe or the US than in other places of the
> world and that is not my aim. I am trying to squeeze the best solutions on
> any type of machine and to provide people that are not necessary computer
> music users with the friendliest setup I can think of.
> >
> > the computer I am programming this is a iMac from 2007 with 4 gb of RAM.
> I have many processes including FFT, but thanks to switch~ I am able to
> optimize the patch. I just have this problem that causes audio drops when
> loading each sample. So not really wanna discuss finances.
> >
> > Thanks again
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Christof Ressi <christof.re...@gmx.at
> [mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at]> wrote:> i keep forgetting of abominations
> like running a 32-bit Pd on a 64-bit OS.
> >
> > Actually, the average Windows user will have more 32-bit apps than
> 64-bit apps running on their 64-bit OS ;-).
> > And most Pd users on 64-bit Windows will have a 32-bit Pd  because
> Miller doesn't offer 64-bit binaries yet and building from source is still
> impossible (at least with MinGW).
> >
> >> decent OSs should be able to manage more than a total 4GB of RAM even
> >> when the entire OS is 32bit (a single application will not be able to
> >> address more than 2^32 bytes though; but it should get you closer to
> >> really having 4GB, rather than 2GB)
> >
> > on 32-bit Windows you usually get 2 GB per process - or 3 GB with some
> tricks*. on 64-bit Windows it's 2 GB for 32-bit processes unless you
> compile with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set, then you get 4 GB.
> >
> > here are the boring details: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
> us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx?ranMID=24542=
> TnL5HPStwNw=TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g=(
> 94e0b4bf83daa242de97c8bfb531e5d9)(256380)(2459594)(TnL5HPStwNw-
> Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g)()[https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
> us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx?ranMID=24542=
> TnL5HPStwNw=TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g=(
> 94e0b4bf83daa242de97c8bfb531e5d9)(256380)(2459594)(TnL5HPStwNw-
> Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g)()]
> >
> >
> > I actually I didn't know about IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE until now.
> Miller could actually use it in his 32-bit Windows builds, which currently
> only allow 2 GB**. It won't do any harm on 32-bit systems and doubles the
> available memory on 64-bit systems.
> >
> >> fun fact: on linux, you can use 64bit Pd for >10 years with virtually
> >> all external libraries working.
> >
> > :-o. time to finally get my dual boot. I weren't so lazy...
> >
> >
&g

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Jack]

I guess Martin was more talking about this solution (see patch attached).
++

Jack



Le 28/02/2017 à 12:35, Christof Ressi a écrit :
> José, I think I have a solution which might work for you. see my attached 
> patch. it's not a clean abstraction but rather demonstrates the principle.
> 
> basically, I spread the loading of the soundfile over several DSP blocks and 
> you can adjust how many samples to load in one block. 44100 samples, for 
> example, works fine for me (no dropouts), which means I can load 1 second of 
> audio in 1.5 ms or 10 minutes in 900 ms! 
> 
> note that it needs soundfile_info from iemlib.
> 
> [soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can simply ignore it 
> by setting the log level to 0. 
> 
> Anyway, I'm really thinking of turning it into an external because there some 
> inefficiencies I could get rid off. Most notably, I have to use an 
> intermediate buffer plus |read -resize -maxsize ...( to prevent [soundfiler] 
> from reading the file always till the end because it doesn't have -nframes as 
> an read option (which is unfortunate).
>  
> Hope that helps!
> 
> Christof 
> 
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 um 07:42 Uhr
> Von: "José Rafael Subía Valdez" <jsubiaval...@gmail.com>
> An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at>
> Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?
> 
> Thank you all..
>  
> but I am developing patches that are handed to performers and should work out 
> of the box, I can't depend on the expensive machines and RAM-DISK settings 
> because I can not tell my performers - you need to do all of this and invest 
> in your computer first before you play my music. Why? because this is 
> something I am doing for my PhD. Yes..saying "buy a fancy computer with lots 
> of RAM" is easier in Europe or the US than in other places of the world and 
> that is not my aim. I am trying to squeeze the best solutions on any type of 
> machine and to provide people that are not necessary computer music users 
> with the friendliest setup I can think of.
>  
> the computer I am programming this is a iMac from 2007 with 4 gb of RAM. I 
> have many processes including FFT, but thanks to switch~ I am able to 
> optimize the patch. I just have this problem that causes audio drops when 
> loading each sample. So not really wanna discuss finances.
>  
> Thanks again
>  
>  
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Christof Ressi 
> <christof.re...@gmx.at[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at]> wrote:> i keep 
> forgetting of abominations like running a 32-bit Pd on a 64-bit OS.
> 
> Actually, the average Windows user will have more 32-bit apps than 64-bit 
> apps running on their 64-bit OS ;-).
> And most Pd users on 64-bit Windows will have a 32-bit Pd  because Miller 
> doesn't offer 64-bit binaries yet and building from source is still 
> impossible (at least with MinGW).
> 
>> decent OSs should be able to manage more than a total 4GB of RAM even
>> when the entire OS is 32bit (a single application will not be able to
>> address more than 2^32 bytes though; but it should get you closer to
>> really having 4GB, rather than 2GB)
> 
> on 32-bit Windows you usually get 2 GB per process - or 3 GB with some 
> tricks*. on 64-bit Windows it's 2 GB for 32-bit processes unless you compile 
> with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set, then you get 4 GB.
> 
> here are the boring details: 
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx?ranMID=24542=TnL5HPStwNw=TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g=(94e0b4bf83daa242de97c8bfb531e5d9)(256380)(2459594)(TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g)()[https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx?ranMID=24542=TnL5HPStwNw=TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g=(94e0b4bf83daa242de97c8bfb531e5d9)(256380)(2459594)(TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g)()]
> 
> 
> I actually I didn't know about IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE until now. 
> Miller could actually use it in his 32-bit Windows builds, which currently 
> only allow 2 GB**. It won't do any harm on 32-bit systems and doubles the 
> available memory on 64-bit systems.
> 
>> fun fact: on linux, you can use 64bit Pd for >10 years with virtually
>> all external libraries working.
> 
> :-o. time to finally get my dual boot. I weren't so lazy...
> 
> 
> Christof
> 
> 
> * IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set + 4GT enabled (risky)
> ** I tested this with latest vanilla 32-bit binaries on Windows 7 64-bit 
> (with 16 GB of RAM installed). I get a warning when I try to exceed 2 GB.
> 
> 
> 
>> Gesendet: Montag, 27. Februar 2017 um 22:58 Uhr
>> Von: "IOhannes m zmölnig" <zmoel...@iem.at[mailto:zmoel...@iem.at]>
>> An: pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[José Rafael Subía Valdez]

Hey Christof and Jean-Yves Gratius

Thanks, I am opening them up just now. Christof, your patch gives me these
errors when I try it out:

soundfiler_read: truncated to 44100 elements -> this one is repeated by the
amount of blocks it will take to completely load the sound file
resize failed

any idea why?? (before I start dismantling it?)

Cheers Guys, much appreciated.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Christof Ressi <christof.re...@gmx.at>
wrote:

> José, I think I have a solution which might work for you. see my attached
> patch. it's not a clean abstraction but rather demonstrates the principle.
>
> basically, I spread the loading of the soundfile over several DSP blocks
> and you can adjust how many samples to load in one block. 44100 samples,
> for example, works fine for me (no dropouts), which means I can load 1
> second of audio in 1.5 ms or 10 minutes in 900 ms!
>
> note that it needs soundfile_info from iemlib.
>
> [soundfiler] will vomit at you in the Pd console but you can simply ignore
> it by setting the log level to 0.
>
> Anyway, I'm really thinking of turning it into an external because there
> some inefficiencies I could get rid off. Most notably, I have to use an
> intermediate buffer plus |read -resize -maxsize ...( to prevent
> [soundfiler] from reading the file always till the end because it doesn't
> have -nframes as an read option (which is unfortunate).
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> Christof
>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 um 07:42 Uhr
> Von: "José Rafael Subía Valdez" <jsubiaval...@gmail.com>
> An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at>
> Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?
>
> Thank you all..
>
> but I am developing patches that are handed to performers and should work
> out of the box, I can't depend on the expensive machines and RAM-DISK
> settings because I can not tell my performers - you need to do all of this
> and invest in your computer first before you play my music. Why? because
> this is something I am doing for my PhD. Yes..saying "buy a fancy computer
> with lots of RAM" is easier in Europe or the US than in other places of the
> world and that is not my aim. I am trying to squeeze the best solutions on
> any type of machine and to provide people that are not necessary computer
> music users with the friendliest setup I can think of.
>
> the computer I am programming this is a iMac from 2007 with 4 gb of RAM. I
> have many processes including FFT, but thanks to switch~ I am able to
> optimize the patch. I just have this problem that causes audio drops when
> loading each sample. So not really wanna discuss finances.
>
> Thanks again
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Christof Ressi <christof.re...@gmx.at
> [mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at]> wrote:> i keep forgetting of abominations
> like running a 32-bit Pd on a 64-bit OS.
>
> Actually, the average Windows user will have more 32-bit apps than 64-bit
> apps running on their 64-bit OS ;-).
> And most Pd users on 64-bit Windows will have a 32-bit Pd  because Miller
> doesn't offer 64-bit binaries yet and building from source is still
> impossible (at least with MinGW).
>
> > decent OSs should be able to manage more than a total 4GB of RAM even
> > when the entire OS is 32bit (a single application will not be able to
> > address more than 2^32 bytes though; but it should get you closer to
> > really having 4GB, rather than 2GB)
>
> on 32-bit Windows you usually get 2 GB per process - or 3 GB with some
> tricks*. on 64-bit Windows it's 2 GB for 32-bit processes unless you
> compile with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set, then you get 4 GB.
>
> here are the boring details: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
> us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx?ranMID=24542=TnL5HPS
> twNw=TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g=(94e
> 0b4bf83daa242de97c8bfb531e5d9)(256380)(2459594)(TnL5HPStwNw-
> Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g)()[https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/
> library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx?ranMID=24542=TnL5HPStw
> Nw=TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g=(94e0b
> 4bf83daa242de97c8bfb531e5d9)(256380)(2459594)(TnL5HPStwNw-Z
> 6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g)()]
>
>
> I actually I didn't know about IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE until now.
> Miller could actually use it in his 32-bit Windows builds, which currently
> only allow 2 GB**. It won't do any harm on 32-bit systems and doubles the
> available memory on 64-bit systems.
>
> > fun fact: on linux, you can use 64bit Pd for >10 years with virtually
> > all external libraries working.
>
> :-o. time to finally get my dual boot. I weren't so lazy...
>
>
> Christof
>
>
> * IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set + 4GT enabled (risky)
> ** I tested this with latest

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[martin brinkmann]

On 27/02/17 19:06, José Rafael Subía Valdez wrote:

> this means that I need to create the record system to avoid
> clicks (fades in and out).

probably i do not understand the problem correctly: you send
the same bang that starts the readsf~-playback to the tabwrite~ which
records the sample. it should happen at the same 'logical time'.
i never had any problems with clicks etc.

the only real drawback is, that you have to set the maximum samplelength
before loading the sample. (the table to which the sample is recorded
has to be big enough) it can be resized afterwards though.
and it takes time. not very much, if the upsampling is high enough,
but for example skipping through a lot of presets with associated
samples is a little unresponsive this way...

___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

On 2017-02-28 07:42, José Rafael Subía Valdez wrote:
> Thank you all..
> 
> but I am developing patches that are handed to performers and should work
> out of the box, I can't depend on the expensive machines and RAM-DISK
> settings because I can not tell my performers - you need to do all of this
> and invest in your computer first before you play my music. Why? because
> this is something I am doing for my PhD. Yes..saying "buy a fancy computer
> with lots of RAM" is easier in Europe or the US than in other places of the
> world 

just to make sure: i'm totally aware that my advice was targetted at a
rich western society. with all the problems that arise from that.

> So not really wanna discuss finances.

but of course you are.

> and that is not my aim. I am trying to squeeze the best solutions on
> any type of machine and to provide people that are not necessary computer
> music users with the friendliest setup I can think of.
> 
> the computer I am programming this is a iMac from 2007 with 4 gb of RAM. I
> have many processes including FFT, but thanks to switch~ I am able to
> optimize the patch. I just have this problem that causes audio drops when
> loading each sample.

you might want to look at the "iem16" library i once wrote to provide a
(packed) 16bit storage of audio data.
it allows you to preload much more data, at a possible loss of data
precision (but your WAV files are probably still 16bit only, so you
won't lose anything here).
it needs to be compiled though, and afaics deken only has binaries for
OSX and linux
so you might need to provide a w32 binary for your friends that can
afford to buy a w32 machine.

fgamsdr
IOhannes


> 
> Thanks again
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

On 2017-02-27 23:50, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 23:13 +0100, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
>> On 02/27/2017 11:04 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>>>

 well, [table] stores the samples as floating point (taking 4
 bytes
 per
 sample; and 8 byte on 64bit systems)
>>> Why is that? And why does it only apply to arrays and not to all
>>> other
>>> number types in Pd? I rather curious than sceptical.
>> Pd's tables use a unified design, that can store all kind of things,
>> including numbers and data structures.
>> since data-structures are stored by reference, a data element in the
>> table must be able to hold a (void*) pointer, which - on 64bit
>> systems -
>> takes 8 bytes.
>> the actual numbers stored in these fields are still only single
>> precision numbers.
> 
> Thanks for the explanation. Sounds wasteful in my ears.
> 

wasteful of what?

available bits on your RAM module? sure.
code that needs to be maintained? no.

>>>
>>> Seems like there
>>> are still some advantages in use Pd on 32-bit architectures. 
>> which?
> 
> It takes half of the memory to load the same amount of audio files. Or
> did I misunderstand?

no you understood correctly.
but you missed the point, that with 64bit archs you will be able to
address 2^32 times the amount of data you can theoretically address on a
32bit arch.
and while current machines do not have *that* much memory, they still
have enough memory to give you more net-value out of your tables than
32bit machines.

this of course does not apply if you are dealing with legacy hardware or
with embedded devices (including the popular Raspberry Pis), because
they often do not have more memory than can be addressed with 32bit.

> 

gfmsdr
IOhannes




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

On 2017-02-27 23:46, Lucas Cordiviola wrote:
> Just because we are at it.

it's totally unrelated.

> 
> On w32 I can have long tables but I cant get values beyond 16777216 using 
> [tabread].
> 
> Also a simple counter stops there, printing with [makefilename %d]:

in general i wouldn't use [makefilename] for such things (you are really
not interested in the string representation of values, but instead of
the values in their numeric representation).

e.g.

[1677726(
|
[t f f]
| |
[+ 1] |
| |
[-]
|
[print]

> 
> print: symbol 16777213
> print: symbol 16777214
> print: symbol 16777215
> print: symbol 16777216
> print: symbol 16777216
> print: symbol 16777216
> print: symbol 16777216
> print: symbol 16777216
> 
> 
> Is this also happening on 64bit Pd/OS?

this is happening on all single precision builds of Pd.
you need double precision to work around the problem.

while single precision indeed takes 32bit per number, and double
precision takes 64bit, when we talk about a "64bit Pd/OS" we really mean
something unrelated (the size of the pointers).

there has been extensive talk about this, including katjas
double-precision Pd in 2007 and my recent attempts on getting
double-precision Pd to fly, as presented on the PdCon16.

gamsdr
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[José Rafael Subía Valdez]

Thank you all..

but I am developing patches that are handed to performers and should work
out of the box, I can't depend on the expensive machines and RAM-DISK
settings because I can not tell my performers - you need to do all of this
and invest in your computer first before you play my music. Why? because
this is something I am doing for my PhD. Yes..saying "buy a fancy computer
with lots of RAM" is easier in Europe or the US than in other places of the
world and that is not my aim. I am trying to squeeze the best solutions on
any type of machine and to provide people that are not necessary computer
music users with the friendliest setup I can think of.

the computer I am programming this is a iMac from 2007 with 4 gb of RAM. I
have many processes including FFT, but thanks to switch~ I am able to
optimize the patch. I just have this problem that causes audio drops when
loading each sample. So not really wanna discuss finances.

Thanks again


On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Christof Ressi <christof.re...@gmx.at>
wrote:

> > i keep forgetting of abominations like running a 32-bit Pd on a 64-bit
> OS.
>
> Actually, the average Windows user will have more 32-bit apps than 64-bit
> apps running on their 64-bit OS ;-).
> And most Pd users on 64-bit Windows will have a 32-bit Pd  because Miller
> doesn't offer 64-bit binaries yet and building from source is still
> impossible (at least with MinGW).
>
> > decent OSs should be able to manage more than a total 4GB of RAM even
> > when the entire OS is 32bit (a single application will not be able to
> > address more than 2^32 bytes though; but it should get you closer to
> > really having 4GB, rather than 2GB)
>
> on 32-bit Windows you usually get 2 GB per process - or 3 GB with some
> tricks*. on 64-bit Windows it's 2 GB for 32-bit processes unless you
> compile with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set, then you get 4 GB.
>
> here are the boring details: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
> us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx?ranMID=24542=
> TnL5HPStwNw=TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g=(
> 94e0b4bf83daa242de97c8bfb531e5d9)(256380)(2459594)(TnL5HPStwNw-
> Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g)()
>
>
> I actually I didn't know about IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE until now.
> Miller could actually use it in his 32-bit Windows builds, which currently
> only allow 2 GB**. It won't do any harm on 32-bit systems and doubles the
> available memory on 64-bit systems.
>
> > fun fact: on linux, you can use 64bit Pd for >10 years with virtually
> > all external libraries working.
>
> :-o. time to finally get my dual boot. I weren't so lazy...
>
>
> Christof
>
>
> * IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set + 4GT enabled (risky)
> ** I tested this with latest vanilla 32-bit binaries on Windows 7 64-bit
> (with 16 GB of RAM installed). I get a warning when I try to exceed 2 GB.
>
>
>
> > Gesendet: Montag, 27. Februar 2017 um 22:58 Uhr
> > Von: "IOhannes m zmölnig" <zmoel...@iem.at>
> > An: pd-list@lists.iem.at
> > Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?
> >
> > On 02/27/2017 10:45 PM, Christof Ressi wrote:
> > >> well, [table] stores the samples as floating point (taking 4 bytes per
> > >> sample; and 8 byte on 64bit systems),
> > > It depends on your Pd (32-bit or 64-bit), not on the system.
> >
> > well yes, true.
> > i keep forgetting of abominations like running a 32-bit Pd on a 64-bit
> OS.
> >
> > >
> > >> however, there is a simple solution at hand: get youself plenty of RAM
> > >> and pre-load everything into tables.
> > >> 32GB cost about 250,-€ and will allow you to load approx. 24h of raw
> > >> audio, which is probably enough.
> > > Unfortunately, this is only true for 64-bit processes. A single 32-bit
> process can't handle more than 2^32 bytes (~4 GB). In reality, it's even
> less, usually 2 GB, which is a bit more than 1,5 hours of stereo audio
> @44100 Hz. Pd will give you a warning when you try to exceed this limit
> ("pd: resizebytes() failed - out of memory").
> >
> > how much RAM does that machine have?
> > decent OSs should be able to manage more than a total 4GB of RAM even
> > when the entire OS is 32bit (a single application will not be able to
> > address more than 2^32 bytes though; but it should get you closer to
> > really having 4GB, rather than 2GB)
> >
> > but yes, in order to make use of 32GB of memory you need a native 64bit
> > application (running on a 64bit OS).
> >
> > fun fact: on linux, you can use 64bit Pd for >10 years with virtually
> > all external libraries working.
> >
> > gmsr
> > IOhannes
&

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Christof Ressi]

> i keep forgetting of abominations like running a 32-bit Pd on a 64-bit OS.

Actually, the average Windows user will have more 32-bit apps than 64-bit apps 
running on their 64-bit OS ;-).
And most Pd users on 64-bit Windows will have a 32-bit Pd  because Miller 
doesn't offer 64-bit binaries yet and building from source is still impossible 
(at least with MinGW). 

> decent OSs should be able to manage more than a total 4GB of RAM even
> when the entire OS is 32bit (a single application will not be able to
> address more than 2^32 bytes though; but it should get you closer to
> really having 4GB, rather than 2GB)

on 32-bit Windows you usually get 2 GB per process - or 3 GB with some tricks*. 
on 64-bit Windows it's 2 GB for 32-bit processes unless you compile with 
IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set, then you get 4 GB. 

here are the boring details: 
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx?ranMID=24542=TnL5HPStwNw=TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g=(94e0b4bf83daa242de97c8bfb531e5d9)(256380)(2459594)(TnL5HPStwNw-Z6NjEgcaJn8pbbYAema89g)()
 


I actually I didn't know about IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE until now. Miller 
could actually use it in his 32-bit Windows builds, which currently only allow 
2 GB**. It won't do any harm on 32-bit systems and doubles the available memory 
on 64-bit systems. 

> fun fact: on linux, you can use 64bit Pd for >10 years with virtually
> all external libraries working.

:-o. time to finally get my dual boot. I weren't so lazy...


Christof


* IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set + 4GT enabled (risky)
** I tested this with latest vanilla 32-bit binaries on Windows 7 64-bit (with 
16 GB of RAM installed). I get a warning when I try to exceed 2 GB. 



> Gesendet: Montag, 27. Februar 2017 um 22:58 Uhr
> Von: "IOhannes m zmölnig" <zmoel...@iem.at>
> An: pd-list@lists.iem.at
> Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?
>
> On 02/27/2017 10:45 PM, Christof Ressi wrote:
> >> well, [table] stores the samples as floating point (taking 4 bytes per
> >> sample; and 8 byte on 64bit systems),
> > It depends on your Pd (32-bit or 64-bit), not on the system. 
> 
> well yes, true.
> i keep forgetting of abominations like running a 32-bit Pd on a 64-bit OS.
> 
> > 
> >> however, there is a simple solution at hand: get youself plenty of RAM
> >> and pre-load everything into tables.
> >> 32GB cost about 250,-€ and will allow you to load approx. 24h of raw
> >> audio, which is probably enough.
> > Unfortunately, this is only true for 64-bit processes. A single 32-bit 
> > process can't handle more than 2^32 bytes (~4 GB). In reality, it's even 
> > less, usually 2 GB, which is a bit more than 1,5 hours of stereo audio 
> > @44100 Hz. Pd will give you a warning when you try to exceed this limit 
> > ("pd: resizebytes() failed - out of memory").
> 
> how much RAM does that machine have?
> decent OSs should be able to manage more than a total 4GB of RAM even
> when the entire OS is 32bit (a single application will not be able to
> address more than 2^32 bytes though; but it should get you closer to
> really having 4GB, rather than 2GB)
> 
> but yes, in order to make use of 32GB of memory you need a native 64bit
> application (running on a 64bit OS).
> 
> fun fact: on linux, you can use 64bit Pd for >10 years with virtually
> all external libraries working.
> 
> gmsr
> IOhannes
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>

___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 18:06 +, José Rafael Subía Valdez wrote:
> Thank you Lucas and Ingo,
> 
> well. I do need to load a lot of samples if I want them preloaded.
> Regarding the ram post that you sent, as I understand, that is
> exactly what table does, as it stores it in RAM (am I right?)
> 
> Ingo, if I understand correclty, I need to record the audio from
> readsf~ into a table. this means that I need to create the record
> system to avoid clicks (fades in and out). This seams overcomplicated
> for a simple thing. But it appears to be the only solution for this
> problem.
> 
> thanks .. anyone else?


I missed Ingo's mail and it's apparently also not in the list archive.
Probably he responded privately.

Anyway, Miller proposed once a solution with [readsf~], too. The idea
was to put it into a re-blocked and upsampled subpatch, so that it
would read the file much quicker than real time, but slow enough not to
cause dropouts. It's a bit more complicated to program than simply
sending a message to [soundfiler], but still easy to do. And you need
to figure out what is a good upsampling ratio.

Roman


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 23:13 +0100, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> On 02/27/2017 11:04 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > well, [table] stores the samples as floating point (taking 4
> > > bytes
> > > per
> > > sample; and 8 byte on 64bit systems)
> > Why is that? And why does it only apply to arrays and not to all
> > other
> > number types in Pd? I rather curious than sceptical.
> Pd's tables use a unified design, that can store all kind of things,
> including numbers and data structures.
> since data-structures are stored by reference, a data element in the
> table must be able to hold a (void*) pointer, which - on 64bit
> systems -
> takes 8 bytes.
> the actual numbers stored in these fields are still only single
> precision numbers.

Thanks for the explanation. Sounds wasteful in my ears.

> > 
> > Seems like there
> > are still some advantages in use Pd on 32-bit architectures. 
> which?

It takes half of the memory to load the same amount of audio files. Or
did I misunderstand?

> > Unfortunately, dealing with largish tables has its complications
> > two
> > which I thought is exactly because everything is stored as 32bit
> > float,
> > even on 64bit systems.
> well, this depends on what you actually do with the tables.
> afaiu, the OP was happy with the using tables, only the data-loading
> was
> causing dropouts.
> so the problems with data precision do not apply here.

Yes, that's true indeed. 


Roman


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Lucas Cordiviola]

Just because we are at it.

On w32 I can have long tables but I cant get values beyond 16777216 using 
[tabread].

Also a simple counter stops there, printing with [makefilename %d]:

print: symbol 16777213
print: symbol 16777214
print: symbol 16777215
print: symbol 16777216
print: symbol 16777216
print: symbol 16777216
print: symbol 16777216
print: symbol 16777216


Is this also happening on 64bit Pd/OS?





Mensaje telepatico asistido por maquinas.



From: Pd-list <pd-list-boun...@lists.iem.at> on behalf of IOhannes m zmölnig 
<zmoel...@iem.at>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 10:13 PM
To: pd-list@lists.iem.at
Subject: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

On 02/27/2017 11:04 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>>
>> well, [table] stores the samples as floating point (taking 4 bytes
>> per
>> sample; and 8 byte on 64bit systems)
>
> Why is that? And why does it only apply to arrays and not to all other
> number types in Pd? I rather curious than sceptical.

Pd's tables use a unified design, that can store all kind of things,
including numbers and data structures.
since data-structures are stored by reference, a data element in the
table must be able to hold a (void*) pointer, which - on 64bit systems -
takes 8 bytes.
the actual numbers stored in these fields are still only single
precision numbers.

> Seems like there
> are still some advantages in use Pd on 32-bit architectures.

which?

>
> Unfortunately, dealing with largish tables has its complications two
> which I thought is exactly because everything is stored as 32bit float,
> even on 64bit systems.

well, this depends on what you actually do with the tables.
afaiu, the OP was happy with the using tables, only the data-loading was
causing dropouts.
so the problems with data precision do not apply here.

fgmdasr
IOhannes


___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 21:10 +0100, zmoel...@iem.at wrote:
> On 02/27/2017 07:06 PM, José Rafael Subía Valdez wrote:
> > 
> > Thank you Lucas and Ingo,
> > 
> > well. I do need to load a lot of samples if I want them preloaded.
> > Regarding the ram post that you sent, as I understand, that is
> > exactly what
> > table does, as it stores it in RAM (am I right?)
> 
> well, [table] stores the samples as floating point (taking 4 bytes
> per
> sample; and 8 byte on 64bit systems)

Why is that? And why does it only apply to arrays and not to all other
number types in Pd? I rather curious than sceptical. Seems like there
are still some advantages in use Pd on 32-bit architectures. 

> > Ingo, if I understand correclty, I need to record the audio from
> > readsf~
> > into a table. this means that I need to create the record system to
> > avoid
> > clicks (fades in and out). This seams overcomplicated for a simple
> > thing.
> > But it appears to be the only solution for this problem.
> > 
> it is not such a simple thing if you care for deterministic
> sample-synchronous playback (you personally might not care, but Pd
> does).
> however, there is a simple solution at hand: get youself plenty of
> RAM
> and pre-load everything into tables.
> 32GB cost about 250,-€ and will allow you to load approx. 24h of raw
> audio, which is probably enough.
> it's not exactly super-cheap, but writing software isn't either.

Unfortunately, dealing with largish tables has its complications two
which I thought is exactly because everything is stored as 32bit float,
even on 64bit systems.

Roman

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

On 02/27/2017 10:45 PM, Christof Ressi wrote:
>> well, [table] stores the samples as floating point (taking 4 bytes per
>> sample; and 8 byte on 64bit systems),
> It depends on your Pd (32-bit or 64-bit), not on the system. 

well yes, true.
i keep forgetting of abominations like running a 32-bit Pd on a 64-bit OS.

> 
>> however, there is a simple solution at hand: get youself plenty of RAM
>> and pre-load everything into tables.
>> 32GB cost about 250,-€ and will allow you to load approx. 24h of raw
>> audio, which is probably enough.
> Unfortunately, this is only true for 64-bit processes. A single 32-bit 
> process can't handle more than 2^32 bytes (~4 GB). In reality, it's even 
> less, usually 2 GB, which is a bit more than 1,5 hours of stereo audio @44100 
> Hz. Pd will give you a warning when you try to exceed this limit ("pd: 
> resizebytes() failed - out of memory").

how much RAM does that machine have?
decent OSs should be able to manage more than a total 4GB of RAM even
when the entire OS is 32bit (a single application will not be able to
address more than 2^32 bytes though; but it should get you closer to
really having 4GB, rather than 2GB)

but yes, in order to make use of 32GB of memory you need a native 64bit
application (running on a 64bit OS).

fun fact: on linux, you can use 64bit Pd for >10 years with virtually
all external libraries working.

gmsr
IOhannes





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Christof Ressi]

> well, [table] stores the samples as floating point (taking 4 bytes per
> sample; and 8 byte on 64bit systems),

It depends on your Pd (32-bit or 64-bit), not on the system. 

> however, there is a simple solution at hand: get youself plenty of RAM
> and pre-load everything into tables.
> 32GB cost about 250,-€ and will allow you to load approx. 24h of raw
> audio, which is probably enough.

Unfortunately, this is only true for 64-bit processes. A single 32-bit process 
can't handle more than 2^32 bytes (~4 GB). In reality, it's even less, usually 
2 GB, which is a bit more than 1,5 hours of stereo audio @44100 Hz. Pd will 
give you a warning when you try to exceed this limit ("pd: resizebytes() failed 
- out of memory").

Christof

> Gesendet: Montag, 27. Februar 2017 um 21:10 Uhr
> Von: zmoel...@iem.at
> An: pd-list@lists.iem.at
> Betreff: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?
>
> On 02/27/2017 07:06 PM, José Rafael Subía Valdez wrote:
> > Thank you Lucas and Ingo,
> > 
> > well. I do need to load a lot of samples if I want them preloaded.
> > Regarding the ram post that you sent, as I understand, that is exactly what
> > table does, as it stores it in RAM (am I right?)
> 
> 
> well, [table] stores the samples as floating point (taking 4 bytes per
> sample; and 8 byte on 64bit systems), whereas most soundfiles will use
> less bytes.
> so having them on a RAM-disk, could indeed help.
> 
> > 
> > Ingo, if I understand correclty, I need to record the audio from readsf~
> > into a table. this means that I need to create the record system to avoid
> > clicks (fades in and out). This seams overcomplicated for a simple thing.
> > But it appears to be the only solution for this problem.
> > 
> 
> it is not such a simple thing if you care for deterministic
> sample-synchronous playback (you personally might not care, but Pd does).
> however, there is a simple solution at hand: get youself plenty of RAM
> and pre-load everything into tables.
> 32GB cost about 250,-€ and will allow you to load approx. 24h of raw
> audio, which is probably enough.
> it's not exactly super-cheap, but writing software isn't either.
> 
> gfmdsar
> IOhannes
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>

___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Lucas Cordiviola]

Best is to have all soundfiles preloaded.

RAM-Disk will help if the soundfiles are short. (this skips the “seek time” of 
a real hard disk)

Even without RAM-disk this is related to your actual Audio-settings “delay ms” 
: more delay more large files without audio drops.

Don't know exactly what your patch is about.





Mensaje telepatico asistido por maquinas.



From: Pd-list <pd-list-boun...@lists.iem.at> on behalf of zmoel...@iem.at 
<zmoel...@iem.at>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 8:10 PM
To: pd-list@lists.iem.at
Subject: Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

On 02/27/2017 07:06 PM, José Rafael Subía Valdez wrote:
> Thank you Lucas and Ingo,
>
> well. I do need to load a lot of samples if I want them preloaded.
> Regarding the ram post that you sent, as I understand, that is exactly what
> table does, as it stores it in RAM (am I right?)


well, [table] stores the samples as floating point (taking 4 bytes per
sample; and 8 byte on 64bit systems), whereas most soundfiles will use
less bytes.
so having them on a RAM-disk, could indeed help.

>
> Ingo, if I understand correclty, I need to record the audio from readsf~
> into a table. this means that I need to create the record system to avoid
> clicks (fades in and out). This seams overcomplicated for a simple thing.
> But it appears to be the only solution for this problem.
>

it is not such a simple thing if you care for deterministic
sample-synchronous playback (you personally might not care, but Pd does).
however, there is a simple solution at hand: get youself plenty of RAM
and pre-load everything into tables.
32GB cost about 250,-€ and will allow you to load approx. 24h of raw
audio, which is probably enough.
it's not exactly super-cheap, but writing software isn't either.

gfmdsar
IOhannes



___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[zmoelnig]

On 02/27/2017 07:06 PM, José Rafael Subía Valdez wrote:
> Thank you Lucas and Ingo,
> 
> well. I do need to load a lot of samples if I want them preloaded.
> Regarding the ram post that you sent, as I understand, that is exactly what
> table does, as it stores it in RAM (am I right?)


well, [table] stores the samples as floating point (taking 4 bytes per
sample; and 8 byte on 64bit systems), whereas most soundfiles will use
less bytes.
so having them on a RAM-disk, could indeed help.

> 
> Ingo, if I understand correclty, I need to record the audio from readsf~
> into a table. this means that I need to create the record system to avoid
> clicks (fades in and out). This seams overcomplicated for a simple thing.
> But it appears to be the only solution for this problem.
> 

it is not such a simple thing if you care for deterministic
sample-synchronous playback (you personally might not care, but Pd does).
however, there is a simple solution at hand: get youself plenty of RAM
and pre-load everything into tables.
32GB cost about 250,-€ and will allow you to load approx. 24h of raw
audio, which is probably enough.
it's not exactly super-cheap, but writing software isn't either.

gfmdsar
IOhannes





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

In cyclone, we got plans to clone [buffer~] as a compiled external, it
should not cause audio drops and could be an alternative to [soundfiler].

For now, in cyclone 0.3 alpha 1 (just released), [buffer~] is a new
abstraction external, based on [soundfiler], so it's causing audio drop
outs.

Anyway, we needed others to help us in the development of [buffer~] as an
external, please let us know if anyone is interested in collaborating. I
was able to do this abstraction as a prototype for now, but I'm counting on
help to get it done as an external.

cheers


2017-02-27 15:06 GMT-03:00 José Rafael Subía Valdez <jsubiaval...@gmail.com>
:

> Thank you Lucas and Ingo,
>
> well. I do need to load a lot of samples if I want them preloaded.
> Regarding the ram post that you sent, as I understand, that is exactly what
> table does, as it stores it in RAM (am I right?)
>
> Ingo, if I understand correclty, I need to record the audio from readsf~
> into a table. this means that I need to create the record system to avoid
> clicks (fades in and out). This seams overcomplicated for a simple thing.
> But it appears to be the only solution for this problem.
>
> thanks .. anyone else?
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Lucas Cordiviola <lucard...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just a couple of thoughts:
>>
>> If you don't need to load too many files you can have them preloaded on
>> some subpatch.
>>
>> If they are many and constantly changing you can try using a portion of
>> your RAM as a virtual HDD, this overrides all fiscal bottleneck of disk IO.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM_drive
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RAM_drive_software
>>
>>
>> On Windows I used “ImDisk Virtual Disk Driver”
>>
>> http://www.ltr-data.se/opencode.html/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mensaje telepatico asistido por maquinas.
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> *From:* Pd-list <pd-list-boun...@lists.iem.at> on behalf of José Rafael
>> Subía Valdez <jsubiaval...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 27, 2017 5:16 PM
>> *To:* pd-list
>> *Subject:* [PD] soundfiler alternative?
>>
>> Hello List,
>>
>> I recently encountered a problem while developing a patch. I get audio
>> drops when I load a sample to a table. Now, I know this is an issue as
>> explained here:
>>
>> https://puredata.info/docs/tutorials/TipsAndTricks#how-to-
>> avoid-audio-drop-outs
>>
>>
>> there are some situations, where audio drop outs can occur. if you know
>> why a certain kind of drop-happens, you probably will find a way to
>> overcome the problem.
>>
>>- fileIO: all objects, that read files from disk, will block audio,
>>until they finished executing. so do load all files beforehand. when you
>>need to load soundfiles during performance into tables, don't use
>>[soundfiler]. miller once suggested using [readsf~] in a subpatch with
>>upsampling, so it will load the sample faster than reading it in realtime,
>>but not block dsp during loadtime. it seems, that some people do load only
>>the very first part of each file, that will be used during a performance
>>into a table, and do read the rest from disk.
>>
>> The problem that I have, is that I need to use soundfiler as I am
>> stretching the sound with fft and it needs to read it within a table. Is
>> there a soundfiler alternative or a way to load a file into a table
>> differently?
>>
>> any help will be appreciated.
>>
>> thank you
>>
>> --
>> José Rafael Subía Valdez
>> www.jrsv.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> José Rafael Subía Valdez
> www.jrsv.net
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/
> listinfo/pd-list
>
>
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[José Rafael Subía Valdez]

Thank you Lucas and Ingo,

well. I do need to load a lot of samples if I want them preloaded.
Regarding the ram post that you sent, as I understand, that is exactly what
table does, as it stores it in RAM (am I right?)

Ingo, if I understand correclty, I need to record the audio from readsf~
into a table. this means that I need to create the record system to avoid
clicks (fades in and out). This seams overcomplicated for a simple thing.
But it appears to be the only solution for this problem.

thanks .. anyone else?

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Lucas Cordiviola <lucard...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Just a couple of thoughts:
>
> If you don't need to load too many files you can have them preloaded on
> some subpatch.
>
> If they are many and constantly changing you can try using a portion of
> your RAM as a virtual HDD, this overrides all fiscal bottleneck of disk IO.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM_drive
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RAM_drive_software
>
>
> On Windows I used “ImDisk Virtual Disk Driver”
>
> http://www.ltr-data.se/opencode.html/
>
>
>
>
> Mensaje telepatico asistido por maquinas.
>
>
> --
> *From:* Pd-list <pd-list-boun...@lists.iem.at> on behalf of José Rafael
> Subía Valdez <jsubiaval...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 27, 2017 5:16 PM
> *To:* pd-list
> *Subject:* [PD] soundfiler alternative?
>
> Hello List,
>
> I recently encountered a problem while developing a patch. I get audio
> drops when I load a sample to a table. Now, I know this is an issue as
> explained here:
>
> https://puredata.info/docs/tutorials/TipsAndTricks#how-
> to-avoid-audio-drop-outs
>
>
> there are some situations, where audio drop outs can occur. if you know
> why a certain kind of drop-happens, you probably will find a way to
> overcome the problem.
>
>- fileIO: all objects, that read files from disk, will block audio,
>until they finished executing. so do load all files beforehand. when you
>need to load soundfiles during performance into tables, don't use
>[soundfiler]. miller once suggested using [readsf~] in a subpatch with
>upsampling, so it will load the sample faster than reading it in realtime,
>but not block dsp during loadtime. it seems, that some people do load only
>the very first part of each file, that will be used during a performance
>into a table, and do read the rest from disk.
>
> The problem that I have, is that I need to use soundfiler as I am
> stretching the sound with fft and it needs to read it within a table. Is
> there a soundfiler alternative or a way to load a file into a table
> differently?
>
> any help will be appreciated.
>
> thank you
>
> --
> José Rafael Subía Valdez
> www.jrsv.net
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
José Rafael Subía Valdez
www.jrsv.net
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Lucas Cordiviola]

Just a couple of thoughts:

If you don't need to load too many files you can have them preloaded on some 
subpatch.

If they are many and constantly changing you can try using a portion of your 
RAM as a virtual HDD, this overrides all fiscal bottleneck of disk IO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM_drive


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RAM_drive_software


On Windows I used “ImDisk Virtual Disk Driver”

http://www.ltr-data.se/opencode.html/





Mensaje telepatico asistido por maquinas.



From: Pd-list <pd-list-boun...@lists.iem.at> on behalf of José Rafael Subía 
Valdez <jsubiaval...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 5:16 PM
To: pd-list
Subject: [PD] soundfiler alternative?

Hello List,

I recently encountered a problem while developing a patch. I get audio drops 
when I load a sample to a table. Now, I know this is an issue as explained here:

https://puredata.info/docs/tutorials/TipsAndTricks#how-to-avoid-audio-drop-outs



there are some situations, where audio drop outs can occur. if you know why a 
certain kind of drop-happens, you probably will find a way to overcome the 
problem.

  *   fileIO: all objects, that read files from disk, will block audio, until 
they finished executing. so do load all files beforehand. when you need to load 
soundfiles during performance into tables, don't use [soundfiler]. miller once 
suggested using [readsf~] in a subpatch with upsampling, so it will load the 
sample faster than reading it in realtime, but not block dsp during loadtime. 
it seems, that some people do load only the very first part of each file, that 
will be used during a performance into a table, and do read the rest from disk.

The problem that I have, is that I need to use soundfiler as I am stretching 
the sound with fft and it needs to read it within a table. Is there a 
soundfiler alternative or a way to load a file into a table differently?

any help will be appreciated.

thank you

--
José Rafael Subía Valdez
www.jrsv.net<http://www.jrsv.net>





___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list