[PD] FM matrix with feedback

[cyrille henry]

Le 08/01/2016 11:16, i go bananas a écrit :
> i just tried upsampling, but it seems to hit the cpu harder than lowering blocksize, even.
my thought was : blocksize 1 AND upsampling (to improve audio quality)

upsampling a 64 block size is not interesting (in therm of cpu and quality)


>
> and yeah, my friend just got a patch going using delwrite~ and vd~, which we can use at blocksize of 1, and it works...  but the hit on the cpu is harsh.
>
> really looking for some way to do this at normal 64 sample blocksize at normal samplerate

if cpu is a limit, i guess the only solution is to create an external.
cheers
c

>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 7:03 PM, cyrille henry <ch at chnry.net <mailto:ch at chnry.net>> wrote:
>
>     oh, I forget to say that you can also upsample the subpatch in order to reduce the feedback latency.
>
>
>
>     Le 08/01/2016 10:54, cyrille henry a écrit :
>
>         s~ and r~ only work with 64 sample block, so you can't use them in this situation.
>         but you can replace them using delwrite~ and delread~ with no delay, and force order to write before you read.
>
>         cheers
>         c
>
>         Le 08/01/2016 10:42, i go bananas a écrit :
>
>             Hi all, hope everyone's well.
>
>             We're trying to implement a 4-op FM matrix with feedback, copying a patch my friend made in reaktor using a block size of 1 (sorry, don't know the full details of that, but he says he can get 1 sample delay for the feedback)
>
>             Has anyone ever succeeded doing something like this in pd?  I know about the order forcing using subpatches like in G.05.execution.order help patch, but that doesn't seem like it will work here, as we still get DSP loop errors when trying to connect the output of one osc~ back into the frequency input of the others.
>
>             I'm really looking for a solution that doesn't involve using blocksize of 1, and anyway, even doing that, still seems the only way to do feedback without getting DSP loop errors is with s~ / r~ pairs, which seem to only work at blocksize of 64 anyway?
>
>             I don't mind adding a bit of latency to the whole system if there's maybe a hack to do this with tables or something,,,but am really stuck here wondering what to do.
>
>             any ideas?
>
>             cheers, Matt
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             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
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         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
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>