[PD] Quick processor question

Andrew Faraday jbturgid at hotmail.com
Mon Feb 1 00:17:37 CET 2010

That looks like it might work. Particularly with things like a patch when I may want to turn parts of my texture on or off depending on inputting data. I could cut out a whole synth algorithm etc.
Thanks for that.

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:23:05 +0100
Subject: Re: [PD] Quick processor question
From: pimassat at gmail.com
To: jbturgid at hotmail.com
CC: pd-list at iem.at

I m not sure if i actually got your question, but if you're trying to "turn off" the oscillator you should use the [switch~] object. It turns audio computation off locally. This means that if you put it in your patch it will turn audio computation on and off for the entire patch, but if you put it in a subpatch (with, say, only your osc~ inside) it will only have an effect at the subpatch level. this is a very useful object when it comes to limiting your CPU load. 


2010/1/31 Andrew Faraday <jbturgid at hotmail.com>

Hey Folks
I'm aware that cutting the signal from an [osc~] will not actually reduce it's processor drain, nor, to my knowledge, does the frequency affect CPU usage. However, does anyone know if it'll take less processor, while not using the output of the object, to give it an argument of 0? That is to say, while the output has [*~] + 0 that zero is also set to the frequency of the [osc~] will this be any more efficient?

Not got a Hotmail account? Sign-up now - Free


Pd-list at iem.at mailing list

UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20100131/b5039097/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list