[PD] route large number of voices

[Benoît Fortier]

Hi Iohannes, in a discussion we had a while ago you mentioned (see below) :
"and really using per-voice send-labels has its drawbacks as well
(cluttering the symbol table; does a global broadcast of the message
just like the other solution (but fewer listeners))."

I've been wondering lately : what are the consequences of cluttering the symbol table? When do I have to start worrying about it?

Benoît Fortier
581 995-5622 

    Le Dimanche 29 mars 2015 9h45, IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> a écrit :
 

 On 03/29/2015 03:14 PM, Benoit Fortier wrote:
> One question out of curiosity IOhannes : I thought of your solution but it felt to me like there was something wrong with it because it uselessly sends data to many many voices. Is my feeling justified in any way, or should I just chill out?

this really depends.
i personally favour approaches where "voices" are as autonomous as
possible. that is, you don't need to split the implementation of the
voice assignment stuff into both the "voice" and the "orchestra" (the
containing patch).

my solution might be slightly less performant, but in reality i wouldn't
expect any problems with todays hardware (we are talking about 100+
voices on a 2.5GHz mobile phone; if you manage to eat your CPU cycles,
than it's most likely not because of excessive use of send/route).


and really using per-voice send-labels has its drawbacks as well
(cluttering the symbol table; does a global broadcast of the message
just like the other solution (but fewer listeners)).


so i would say: in practice, your feeling is not really justified.


gfmdsar
IOhannes

_______________________________________________
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/20160415/ce424454/attachment.html>