[PD] timing question

[Derek Holzer]

OK, now I've got it. This can be explained! It especially makes sense 
with the old "infinite looping" counter patch:

[f]X[+ 1]

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!

best,
d.

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 
> stopped)
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> mfg.asdr
> IOhannes
> 

-- 
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista
---Oblique Strategy # 22:
"Be less critical more often"