probably because you can have multiple throw~ sources for a single catch~ destination and they will be summed... so it's more than just a cable hider.
pix.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:26:36 +0200 "Guilherme Carvalho" guilherme@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Wow, what a difference.
Thanx pix.
Guilherme ----- Original Message ----- From: "pix" pix@test.at To: pd-list@iem.at Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [PD] send~/throw~ versus patch cord
i jsut did a test with nqpoly4, using two grains that were identical except one had an extra throw-catch pair in it. the one with the throw catch pair started to max out my system (119% cpu) with 300 voices, but the straight connected one was still getting only about 68% cpu. a grain using an s~/r~ connection did only slightly better than throw/catch, using about 115% cpu.
pix.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:21:10 +0200 "Guilherme Carvalho" guilherme@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Hello list,
I was wondering: is using a lot of throw~/catch~ pairs (or s~/r~) more expensive in terms of CPU than connecting objetcts directly with cords? Things do look better without all the criss-crossing, but I must save all I can in terms of CPU.
Thanks in advance, Guilherme
--
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list