[PD] maximum "control rate" in Pd

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

"


*i don't understand your patch.using [timer], a delay 0 will give a 0
delay...logical time will always be consistent.*"

well, I thought you were disucussing here and reaching the conclusion that
[timer] is the one to be used to calculate this...

So you mean this result is actually inconsistent? And the implication is
that it is not going at that super fast rate at all? Please help me
understand better about how to measure this.

thanks


2015-03-12 11:55 GMT-03:00 Cyrille Henry <ch at chnry.net>:

> hello,
>
> i don't understand your patch.
>
> using [timer], a delay 0 will give a 0 delay...
> logical time will always be consistent.
>
>
> cheers
> c
>
>
> Le 12/03/2015 15:41, Alexandre Torres Porres a écrit :
>
>> ok, so the metro at 1ms is because I'm using extended.
>>
>> as for the minimum time pd can process and send data, what's the final
>> word on it?
>>
>> something like 1.4013e-45 ms?
>>
>> cause that's a lot more than an audio rate at 44.1khz :)
>>
>> I thought there was a limit control rate that was below the audio rate,
>> but curiously it can go over.
>>
>> 1 sample at 44.1khz gives us 0.0226757 ms, and I was able to send bangs
>> at 1e-06 ms, according to [timer]
>>
>> check my patch attached, based on the one that was sent here on the
>> thread.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> 2015-03-12 10:04 GMT-03:00 Cyrille Henry <ch at chnry.net <mailto:
>> ch at chnry.net>>:
>>
>>     hello,
>>
>>     Le 12/03/2015 10:12, Roman Haefeli a écrit :
>>
>>         On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 09:17 +0100, Cyrille Henry wrote:
>>
>>             hello
>>
>>             this patch show the same behaviors for a delay based metro
>> and a [metro].
>>             (both can do faster than 1ms period)
>>
>>
>>         You're right. More recent versions of Pd (>= 0.45?) have an
>> updated
>>         [metro] that supports many more ways to specify time and the
>> restriction
>>         was lowered. However, the [metro] in any available version of
>>         Pd-extended is still limited to 1ms.
>>
>>     sorry, i was not aware of this old limitation.
>>
>>
>>         I don't understand why you use [realtime] and not [timer] to
>> illustrate
>>         your point. [timer] gives you consistent values (logical time)
>> while
>>         [realtime] is very jittery and shows just some random value
>> depending on
>>         the current cpu usage and probably other factors. When you render
>> a
>>         soundfile, the logical time is actually the one that matters.
>>
>>     yes, for things that stay in pd, logical time is better.
>>     but if you want to send midi note, [realtime] is more related to what
>> happens.
>>     it's just the way i understand the original question.
>>
>>     cheers
>>     c
>>
>>
>>
>>         Roman
>>
>>
>>
>>         _________________________________________________
>>         Pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list at lists.iem.at> mailing list
>>         UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>> http://lists.puredata.info/__listinfo/pd-list <
>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list>
>>
>>
>>     _________________________________________________
>>     Pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list at lists.iem.at> mailing list
>>     UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/__
>> listinfo/pd-list <http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/
>> listinfo/pd-list
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/
> listinfo/pd-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20150312/845b00ca/attachment-0001.html>