[PD] Delay circuit feedback DSP error-- only when signal path leaves abstraction

[Christof Ressi]

@Dan

> As far as I recall, going between abstraction to parent patch via 
> inlet~/outlet~ introduces a block delay, hence no error
There's no delay (as long as the blocksizes match).

@William

> Second abstraction contains an effect in the feedback path. (in my 
> simple example, it's just a null wire: In-L passes to Out-L, etc). 
> Again this *works*, no DSP error. 
But you're using [r~] and [s~] which is not the same as direct signal 
connections. The former can act like a short delay line. Please read 
"3.audio.examples/G05.execution.order".

Christof

On 25.02.2020 11:42, Dan Wilcox wrote:
> As far as I recall, going between abstraction to parent patch via 
> inlet~/outlet~ introduces a block delay, hence no error
>
>> Third patch is like the second, only the effect has been moved out of 
>> the abstraction, and into the parent patch. ONLY HERE do I get the 
>> DSP loop error.
>
> Signal loop in a single patch without abstractions = error. Pd has no 
> way to read and write to the same signal buffer in the patch at the 
> same time *without* some tiny delay.
>
>> *The point is the last two patches have (or should have) an identical 
>> graph! *
>
> At the lower level, they don't. What happens if you put part of the 
> path inside a subpath which uses inlet~/outlet~?
>
>> On Feb 25, 2020, at 11:36 AM, William Huston 
>> <williamahuston at gmail.com <mailto:williamahuston at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> First abstraction, simple stereo delay:  2 delay lines, variable 
>> feedback L->R, R->L.
>>  This *works*, no DSP loop error.
>>
>> Second abstraction contains an effect in the feedback path. (in my 
>> simple example, it's just a null wire: In-L passes to Out-L, etc). 
>> Again this *works*, no DSP error.
>>
>> Third patch is like the second, only the effect has been moved out of 
>> the abstraction, and into the parent patch. ONLY HERE do I get the 
>> DSP loop error.
>>
>> *The point is the last two patches have (or should have) an identical 
>> graph! *
>> *
>> *
>> It really seems like a bug to me.
>>
>> I'll upload a test patch a little later.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> BH
>
> --------
> Dan Wilcox
> @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika>
> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com>
> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20200225/851a093f/attachment.html>