[PD] implications of pd~ for 'poly' objects

Phil Stone pkstone at ucdavis.edu
Tue Sep 8 19:40:57 CEST 2009


Hi Hans,

Thanks for replying.  I don't quite understand what you mean by 
"manually manage".  As far as I know, without something like [pd~], 
there's no way to divide up and assign the Pd audio process to more than 
one core.  Half of the cores on a quad-core are therefore useless to Pd 
(accounting for the fact that the graphical process gets its own core).

Phil


Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
> It would definitely be possible to write a pdpoly~ but usually it 
> would be easier to manually manage 2-4 instances.  Few people have 
> more than 4 cores.  I see those poly objects as useful for 10+ and 
> make managing 100s or 1000s possible.
>
> .hc
>
> On Sep 8, 2009, at 1:24 PM, Phil Stone wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have skimmed Miller's paper from Pd-con about [pd~], and it looks 
>> like it has potential for taking advantage of multiple-core CPUs.  I 
>> need to read it in a little more detail to digest it fully, but I'm 
>> wondering (and this is directed mostly at Frank B.): could [polypoly] 
>> and/or [nqpoly] use [pd~] for each voice/replicated-patch instance?
>>
>>
>> Phil Stone
>> www.pkstonemusic.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>
> Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick.    
> -David Zicarelli
>
>
>





More information about the Pd-list mailing list