[PD] Fwd: Variable number of objects?

[Jaime Oliver]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Ingo <ingo at miamiwave.com> wrote:
> One shouldn't underestimate the cpu load when several hundreds of midi
> controllers per second are modulating hundreds of parameters and the get
> multiplied by 16 voices constantly because the control messages are still
> active all of the time.

Why would you have control messages going if switch~ is off?

J


>
> Ingo
>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Ingo <ingo at miamiwave.com>
>> > To: 'Roman Haefeli' <reduzent at gmail.com>; 'Ludwig Maes'
>> <ludwig.maes at gmail.com>
>> > Cc: 'Pd List' <pd-list at iem.at>
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:33 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [PD] Fwd:  Variable number of objects?
>> >
>> > Actually, I just tried again to simply copy a couple of voices and it
>> only
>> > took a fraction of a second with a very short dropout - even with the
>> dsp
>> > on.
>> >
>> > I have recently installed Natty instead of Lucid on a new machine. Maybe
>> it
>> > has something to do with realloc that Mathieu mentioned.
>> >
>> > So it looks like dynamic patching of voices isn't "that" much of a
>> > problem
>> > here anymore. It still takes 7-8 seconds to create 16 voices in my case
>> with
>> > the dsp off (12 with the dsp on) but that's still faster than restarting
>> the
>> > patch. I would never have checked again if nobody would have mentioned
>> it.
>> >
>> > I have attached a patch that I used for testing. These voices were
>> receiving
>> > their input with [receive] so no connections were needed. If you are
>> using
>> > wired inlets you will have to dynamically add the connections of course.
>> >
>> > I added a cut & paste at the end because for some reasons the voices
>> > didn't
>> > get initialized correctly. Not sure if this is needed for other
>> > voice-abstractions.
>> >
>> > Ingo
>> >
>> >
>> >>  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> >>  Von: pd-list-bounces at iem.at [mailto:pd-list-bounces at iem.at] Im Auftrag
>> von
>> >>  Roman Haefeli
>> >>  Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. September 2011 08:36
>> >>  An: Ludwig Maes
>> >>  Cc: Pd List
>> >>  Betreff: Re: [PD] Fwd: Variable number of objects?
>> >>
>> >>  On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 19:29 +0200, Ludwig Maes wrote:
>> >>  >
>> >>  >
>> >>  > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >>  > From: Ludwig Maes <ludwig.maes at gmail.com>
>> >>  > Date: 28 September 2011 19:29
>> >>  > Subject: Re: [PD] Variable number of objects?
>> >>  > To: Ingo <ingo at miamiwave.com>
>> >>  >
>> >>  >
>> >>  > I actually meant more in general, also for non-~ signals (i.e. also
>> >>  > control rate .pd patches). I referred to polysynth such that people
>> >>  > would see more easily what I meant. Are there really no such
>> >>  > primitives? That seems like quite a restriction...
>> >>  >
>> >>  > How can that take 10 seconds?? I dont see what would cause such a
>> huge
>> >>  > overhead, i'd expect an increase in computations & memory
>> > though (say
>> >>  > from 10 voices to 11: 10% increase in cpu workload & ram dedicated
>> > to
>> >>  > these voices..., I fail to see what would necessitate a long
>> >>  > initialization...)
>> >>  >
>> >>  > also, how is it done even with the long delays?
>> >>  >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  As I understand it, the whole DSP is recompiled whenever it is
>> changed.
>> >>  So, if you have a very large patch (and Ingo seems to be an expert in
>> >>  very large patches) and you create another voice, it's easily possible
>> >>  to eat up quite some time.
>> >>
>> >>  Also, it's probably much slower the first time, if the voice
>> > abstraction
>> >>  is built of many other abstractions, which need to be read from disk.
>> >>
>> >>  But I guess you are right about the increase in CPU workload _after_
>> the
>> >>  DSP graph has been recompiled: A switch from 10 two 11 instances is
>> >>  expected to show only an increase of 10% in CPU usage.
>> >>
>> >>  It's been said, that often you can gain quite some time while turning
>> >>  off DSP during dynamic instantiation. But I guess, this makes only a
>> >>  difference when performing several instantiations at the same time.
>> When
>> >>  DSP is on, each cycle would cause a complete DSP graph recompilation,
>> >>  whereas when DSP is off, it's only recompiled once (after turning it
>> on
>> >>  again).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  Roman
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  _______________________________________________
>> >>  Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>> >>  UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>> >>  http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>



-- 
Jaime E Oliver LR

www.jaimeoliver.pe

858 750 0924 (cel)
858 202 1522 (home)