[PD] soundfiler alternative?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 23:13 +0100, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> On 02/27/2017 11:04 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > well, [table] stores the samples as floating point (taking 4
> > > bytes
> > > per
> > > sample; and 8 byte on 64bit systems)
> > Why is that? And why does it only apply to arrays and not to all
> > other
> > number types in Pd? I rather curious than sceptical.
> Pd's tables use a unified design, that can store all kind of things,
> including numbers and data structures.
> since data-structures are stored by reference, a data element in the
> table must be able to hold a (void*) pointer, which - on 64bit
> systems -
> takes 8 bytes.
> the actual numbers stored in these fields are still only single
> precision numbers.

Thanks for the explanation. Sounds wasteful in my ears.

> > 
> > Seems like there
> > are still some advantages in use Pd on 32-bit architectures. 
> which?

It takes half of the memory to load the same amount of audio files. Or
did I misunderstand?

> > Unfortunately, dealing with largish tables has its complications
> > two
> > which I thought is exactly because everything is stored as 32bit
> > float,
> > even on 64bit systems.
> well, this depends on what you actually do with the tables.
> afaiu, the OP was happy with the using tables, only the data-loading
> was
> causing dropouts.
> so the problems with data precision do not apply here.

Yes, that's true indeed. 


Roman
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20170227/76994a2c/attachment.sig>