[PD] Re: readsf~ / soundfiler crash with lots of big files
gloriousclaudiusmaximus at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Nov 11 18:15:10 CET 2004
The following assumes that you are talking about Pd crashing when your
patch loads samples via messages to [soundfiler] on startup.
I have successfully made and used a patch that loads 25 stereo WAV files
into 50 tables on startup, using [soundfiler]. Each of the WAV files
was 16bit stereo 44.1kHz and about 7 seconds long.
Then 96 sample players played back simultaneously a random selection of
the 50 tables using [tabread~]. I could get up to 128 sample players
but that didn't leave enough CPU time for the rest of the patch.
Unfortunately I seem to have deleted the whole of that patch directory
by accident and I don't have a backup (which annoys me immensely).
However, the Pd version I successfully used it with was devel_0_37
configured with the threaded soundfiler patch - maybe that has something
to do with success or failure.
Are you running Pd with the -rt flag? If so, perhaps the time it takes
to load the samples is causing the Pd watchdog to kill Pd.
Stefan Turner wrote:
> Hi Pete, thanks for the reply. Unfortunately they do
> all need to be loaded.
> Basically, (sorry for not explaining it too well), if
> you were just going to use a few readsf~ with poly in
> front, i.e. forget about these tables completely, you
> need to wait between telling readsf~ to open and
> telling it to start; it can't do both straight away.
> That's the point of the tables: they CAN start playing
> the very first bit (4096 samples) straight away, and
> that gives enough time between telling readsf~ to open
> and telling it to start playing. As I say it works
> fine for a few pitches, and I guess it is the standard
> approach for these types of instrument.
> So therefore you DO need a table per pitch: if you
> only had say six, then any note outside of those six
> could not be played instantly like this.
> Hope that explains it better. I think the main problem
> is readsf~ seems to load ALL of a big file into
> memory, although I only want the first 4096 samples
> and close it after this. When I try and have 12 of
> these at the same time, pd dies. Does this mean pd is
> incapable of working as a basic soft sampler??
> Er sorry for writing another essay. I'd love to hear
> any ideas!
>>could you not have less tables by not allocating each
>>voice an array? loading soundfiles into say 6 arrays
>>and switching between them. and as you press a key it
>>loads the key into the oldest array/table, there's a
>>file in the documentation about voice allocation i
>>hope this is useful
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
More information about the Pd-list