[PD] send~ and receive~ issues
Frank Barknecht
fbar at footils.org
Mon Jan 24 16:53:54 CET 2005
Hallo,
Piotr Majdak hat gesagt: // Piotr Majdak wrote:
> I have a problem with the latency between some parts of my patches -
> some of them are delayed by 64 samples (=block size). I think I've
> created some [r~]s before other [s~]s, which would lead to this
> behaviour. But: I don't know which objects are affected and I've got
> more than 50 [s~]s and [r~]s ;-)
>
> The structure of the signal path is something like that:
>
> main patch "mypatch": [pd PLAY] [pd DAC]
>
> subpatch "PLAY": [play sig1] [play sig2] ... [play sigN]
>
> abstraction "play.pd":
>
> [readsf~]
> |
> |
> [s~ $1]
>
>
> subpatch "DAC":
>
> [dac dac1] [dac dac2] ... [dac dacN]
> | | |
> | | |
> [dac~ 1] [dac~ 2] [dac~ 3]
>
> abstraction "dac.pd":
>
> [r~ sigX]
> |
> |
> [outlet~]
>
> (playX will be set in real time to the necessary signal sigX)
>
>
> Then, I want to start each of the readsf~ with different delays. To
> achieve that I use [1( with many [delay]s, with different delay values
> for each [readsf~]. Even if I quantize all delay values to the block
> size, I've got an additional delay of the block size on some channels,
> which only depends on the delay values and is not a jitter on DAC buffers!
One problem might be, that [del] is quantized to I think, 64 samples.
You cannot go below that with a [del] object. You might try the t3
objects instead.
> Is it possible to determine the order of [s~] and [r~] having a look to
> the patch files?
Yes, somehow at least. Take a long(!) look at
doc/3.audio.examples/G05.execution.order.pd
Ordering involves using subpatches which force your objects to be in a
certain dsp-ordering. Maybe dummy-connecting your PLAY and DAC
subpatches as shown in the example file will already help in your case.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list