[PD] timing question
derek at umatic.nl
Mon Dec 17 17:58:01 CET 2007
OK, now I've got it. This can be explained! It especially makes sense
with the old "infinite looping" counter patch:
where [+ 1] gets sent to the hot rather than the cold inlet of [f]. It
wouldn't be such a problem if it only counted on signal blocks, but it
actually counts as fast as the CPU will let it.
Great, concept is clear, I can continue!
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> Derek Holzer wrote:
>> So now that I've been told that actually DSP objects are "slower", it
>> shakes up my world view a bit, so I'm looking for new metaphors to get
>> it back together ;-)
> all the "slower" vs "faster" is non-sense.
> signals are handled in a _synchronous_ way (they have to process 44100
> samples per second; synchronized with the soundcard); they do this
> continuosly (once you have started the audio-engine they will process
> 44100 samples/sec until the end of the world, or the audio engine gets
> messages are handled in an _asynchronous_ way: "they happen on demand!";
> they might occur every now and then; two messages might occur at the
> same logical time,...
> so all in all, messages are way more powerful than signals.
> unfortunately, CPU is not.
> that is one reason, why the oh-so-powerful messages are not used for
> signal processing.
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista
---Oblique Strategy # 22:
"Be less critical more often"
More information about the Pd-list