[PD] [soundfiler] - get rid of the arbitrary default value for "-maxsize"

[Christof Ressi]

great, thanks! 

Christof

> Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Mai 2018 um 17:09 Uhr
> Von: "Miller Puckette" <msp at ucsd.edu>
> An: "Christof Ressi" <christof.ressi at gmx.at>
> Cc: "Roman Haefeli" <reduzent at gmail.com>, pd-list at lists.iem.at
> Betreff: Re: [PD] [soundfiler] - get rid of the arbitrary default value for "-maxsize"
>
> The original problem was that sometimes allocating lots of memory would slow
> the machine to a crawl.  I guess with more modern OSes this isn't necessary
> (and anyway people aren't using 32-megabyte machines much anymore) so this
> isn't necessary any longer.  I'll go ahead and remove it.
> 
> cheers
> Miller
> 
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:14:49AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
> > I quoted the "16 MB" thing from the source code but you're right that it probably comes from the precision limit.
> > 
> > > You kinda need to know what you do when exceeding that or the result
> > > may have bad sound quality.  
> > 
> > sure, but this is rather an issue with [tabread4~] (which is addressed in the help patch). I might as well want to play the table with [tabplay~]. or do something completely different with the data. I think [soundfiler] should be agnostic about it.
> > 
> > btw, Pd extended didn't have this limit and I remember that I was puzzled when I switched to Pd vanilla and my soundfiles would be cut off. the default value isn't even documented. in all this years I've only ever used "-maxsize" to circumvent the default maxsize - which I find quite ironic :-)
> > 
> > 
> > > Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2018 um 23:30 Uhr
> > > Von: "Roman Haefeli" <reduzent at gmail.com>
> > > An: pd-list at lists.iem.at
> > > Betreff: Re: [PD] [soundfiler] - get rid of the arbitrary default value for "-maxsize"
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2018-05-26 at 16:37 +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
> > > > https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/366
> > > > 
> > > > I guess that arbitrary 16MB default maxsize is a relict of past
> > > > times... let's get rid of it :-)
> > > 
> > > You make it sound like the reason for the limit was precious memory. I
> > > agree that memory often is not that precious anymore, but the real
> > > reason for this limit might have been the fact that you lose precision
> > > the higher your index for table lookup is. I guess above 16MB you even
> > > can't address every single integer anymore with 32bit float numbers.
> > > You kinda need to know what you do when exceeding that or the result
> > > may have bad sound quality.  
> > > 
> > > Roman_______________________________________________
> > > Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>