[PD] s~ & r~ with block size other than 64?

[Matt Barber]

Here's the short story:

[s~] and [r~] are pretty straightforward: [s~] fills a block buffer every
sample, and any [r~] with the same name can find that buffer and read from
it. In principle it wouldn't be too hard to let them be any block size so
long as they're the same size, but there would be some tricky things with
overlap and resampling. [catch~] reads from a one-block buffer and zeroes
it out as it goes, and [throw~] sums into its catcher's buffer.
[delwrite~]/[delread~] work with any block size because the buffer size
isn't related to any block size.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Christof Ressi <christof.ressi at gmx.at>
wrote:

> I think he rather meant that [s~] and [r~] doesn't need to check the
> vector size for each DSP cycle. The error message you're talking about is
> only thrown after creating [s~] or [r~] objects in a subpatch with
> blocksize != 64 AND everytime you set a "forbidden" blocksize dynamically
> with a message to [block~], so it *could* be that the check is only
> performed for such events and not for each DSP cycle. Although getting an
> error message for dynamically changing the blocksize rather implies a check
> for each DSP cycle... But I'm only making assumptions. Apart from possible
> performance optimations I can't see any reason for this restriction either!
>
> BTW: It's not like a pair of [s~] and [r~] won't generally work for
> blocksizes other than 64. It basically works as expected when used as
> "wireless audio connections" (at least in the situations I tried) but
> things get screwed up once you try feedback or if the blocksizes don't
> match. Again, it would be really cool if someone could clarify what's
> really going on under the hood (e.g. how [s~] and [r~] differ from
> [delwrite] and [delread~]) or point to an already existing thread in the
> mailing list archive.
>
>
>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Februar 2016 um 07:08 Uhr
> Von: "Alexandre Torres Porres" <porres at gmail.com>
> An: "i go bananas" <hard.off at gmail.com>
> Cc: "pd-list at lists.iem.at" <pd-list at lists.iem.at>
> Betreff: Re: [PD] s~ & r~ with block size other than 64?
>
> really? can't see how much more relevantly efficient it'd be, and it kinda
> does check it already, hence the errors
>
> cheers
>
> 2016-02-26 3:07 GMT-03:00 i go bananas <hard.off at gmail.com>:I would
> assume it's also slightly more efficient that pd doesn't have to check the
> vector size when processing the s~ / r~ functions.
>  _______________________________________________ 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160226/3133d991/attachment.html>