Yeah, maybe that is positive (reverb tails etc) but if not, you could put the control on the other end, send your signal into every effect in parallel and then mix in the one you want to hear selectively.
Alex
On August 20, 2019 7:06:10 PM PDT, Nick Porcaro nick@porcaro.org wrote:
Hey x_nor,
The problem with this approach is that you still have active signal processing going in each effect even if they are panned to zero (I assume) and you couldn’t change the running order of effect1 and effect2.
Thanks for thinking on it though. I’m going to study Miller’s responses and let you all know it goes-
- Nick
On Aug 20, 2019, at 7:26 PM, x nor x37v.alex@gmail.com wrote:
another approach could be to generate all the permutations of your
effects as abstractions and simply route audio to a permutation selectively like you would with a speaker with an N-channel panner.
[adc~] | [pan control] | | [pan~ ] | | .... [effect1~] | | [effect2~] | | [mixer~ ] | [dac~]
generating abstraction by editing files as text is pretty simple,
patching each abstraction to a panner is probably pretty simple with your text editor as well.
though, maybe you don't have enough processing power for it? but..
maybe you do?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:09 PM Miller Puckette <msp@ucsd.edu
mailto:msp@ucsd.edu> wrote:
actually I wrote that before I thought the whole thing out :)
No, if you "tick" a pdlib instance you tick all the patches in it -
so teh
way to get different patches in different orders is to call up a
separate
Pd instance for each of them, and use "adc~" and "dac~" objects to
get
audio in and out - that incurs zero latency (once you've buffered 64 samples in the first place).
OR, within one pd instance, in libpd or in Pd, you can use switch~
objects,
switched off, to control each sub-patch. Send the switch~ objects
bangs in
whatever orders you wish. In this scenario, tabsend~ and tabreceive~
would
be the simplemt way to pass signals between them. In libpd you can
do this
zero-latency (just stuff your inpuits into arrays before sending all
the
tick messages and copy the results out afterward).
Within the Pd app, you can do teh same thing but you incur one tick
extra
latency, because copying the autio into the tables has to happen on
the
previous tick form the one on which you get the outputs back.
If you like danger, you can write an external tilde object that, for
its
"dsp" action, sends a message to teh patch that can "tick" the
switch~
objects right in the middle of Pd/s DSP tick. This is not part of Pd because it could cause major confusion if general-purpose Pd messages got sent around in mid-tick.
cheers Miller
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:55:58PM +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 12:09 -0700, Miller Puckette wrote:
I think the way to do this in libpd is to open them all as
separate
patches within one instance of Pd (so that symbols are shared) and use "tabsend" and "tabreceive" to route signals to/from them, using shared
names
like "channel1" as both inputs and outputs so you can rearrange them
in
any order.
(Beware of allowing patches to _write_ andy of their output
channels
before reading all the input channels, if you're re-using the same
channels
as inputs and outputs :)
Do I understand right: When loading them as separate patches, you
can
dynamically re-order the signal flow by using
[tabsend~]/[tabreceive~]
(which you could with abstractions, too) _without_ adding latency?
And: When changing the symbol of [tabsend~] or [tabreceive~], is
the
DSP graph re-calculated?
Roman
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at mailto:Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at mailto:Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev