[PD] multichannel vs many stereo writesf objects?

Christof Ressi info at christofressi.com
Mon Sep 28 22:36:44 CEST 2020

Personally I would use a single [writesf~].

Each [writesf~] has its own background thread where most of the time is 
being spent waiting for disk, so I'd say there's no point in 
parallelizing by using several [writesf~] objects. On the contrary, you 
only end up with more context switches.

Personally, I occasionally experience audio dropouts when using many 
[readsf~] objects which I attribute to the excessive mutex locking since 
the objects are not really CPU intensive...


PS: I think that all [readsf~] resp. [writesf~] objects should really 
share a single IO thread and use a lockfree fifo instead of mutexes 
(like in SuperCollider)...

On 28.09.2020 19:51, Fede Camara Halac wrote:
> Hi,
> What is more efficient for recording, say, a +15 minute 16 channel performance: a single writesf with 16 channels or 8 writesf object with 2 channels each?
> Bonus question: What if I place a stereo writesf inside a patch and run 8 separate pd~ objects?
> The context: recording network performance using Netty McNetface. This is why I'm trying to reduce as much processing from the main patch while staying within pd-land. (Routing multichannel audio out to another daw would be an option that I'm not considering right now)
> Thanks!
> f
> fdch.github.io
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

More information about the Pd-list mailing list