[PD] send~/throw~ versus patch cord
pix at test.at
Sat Jun 21 07:15:32 CEST 2003
probably because you can have multiple throw~ sources for a single catch~
destination and they will be summed... so it's more than just a cable
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:26:36 +0200
"Guilherme Carvalho" <guilherme at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Wow, what a difference.
> Thanx pix.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "pix" <pix at test.at>
> To: <pd-list at iem.at>
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [PD] send~/throw~ versus patch cord
> > i jsut did a test with nqpoly4, using two grains that were identical
> > except one had an extra throw-catch pair in it. the one with the throw
> > catch pair started to max out my system (119% cpu) with 300 voices,
> > but the straight connected one was still getting only about 68% cpu. a
> > grain using an s~/r~ connection did only slightly better than
> > throw/catch, using about 115% cpu.
> > pix.
> > On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:21:10 +0200
> > "Guilherme Carvalho" <guilherme at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > Hello list,
> > >
> > > I was wondering: is using a lot of throw~/catch~ pairs (or s~/r~)
> > > more expensive in terms of CPU than connecting objetcts directly
> > > with cords? Things do look better without all the criss-crossing,
> > > but I must save all I can in terms of CPU.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > Guilherme
> > >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > PD-list mailing list
> > PD-list at iem.at
> > http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
> PD-list mailing list
> PD-list at iem.at
More information about the Pd-list