> If you want shorter feedbacks than 64 samples within a patch, there is
no way around reducing block size

i still have this itching doubt in that.  i think what we're looking for is some real leap of imagination here.  
we are fine with having a block or 2 latency,,,so i'm imagining maybe there's some far out hack involving synchronised tabread~'s and delayed osc~'s, or something like that,  which would somehow do it. 

>You may be able to optimize by
putting only the very necessary (for the feedback loop) objects into the
re-blocked subpatch.

yeah that seems the most likely approach now. 

>if cpu is a limit, i guess the only solution is to create an external.

this is probably the 2nd most likely solution.  

thanks guys for your ideas and help.  

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Roman Haefeli <reduzent@gmail.com> wrote:
If you want shorter feedbacks than 64 samples within a patch, there is
no way around reducing block size. You may be able to optimize by
putting only the very necessary (for the feedback loop) objects into the
re-blocked subpatch.

Then there are some classes that do internal sample-size feedbacks,
like [rpole~] or [fexpr~]. While [fexpr~] is quite flexible, it may be
even more expensive than a subpatch with blocksize=1 (at least that's
what I remember when I compared two implementations, but  this
observation might have been specific to that kind of problem).

Roman

On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 18:42 +0900, i go bananas wrote:
> Hi all, hope everyone's well.
>
> We're trying to implement a 4-op FM matrix with feedback, copying a
> patch my friend made in reaktor using a block size of 1 (sorry, don't
> know the full details of that, but he says he can get 1 sample delay
> for the feedback)
>
> Has anyone ever succeeded doing something like this in pd?  I know
> about the order forcing using subpatches like in G.05.execution.order
> help patch, but that doesn't seem like it will work here, as we still
> get DSP loop errors when trying to connect the output of one osc~ back
> into the frequency input of the others.
>
> I'm really looking for a solution that doesn't involve using blocksize
> of 1, and anyway, even doing that, still seems the only way to do
> feedback without getting DSP loop errors is with s~ / r~ pairs, which
> seem to only work at blocksize of 64 anyway?
>
>
> I don't mind adding a bit of latency to the whole system if there's
> maybe a hack to do this with tables or something,,,but am really stuck
> here wondering what to do.
>
> any ideas?
>
>
> cheers, Matt
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list


_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list