You could also just play sine waves thru them and then feed all signals to a set of bandpass filters. Measure the amplitude of the filtered signals and you know which one you have. But perhaps your PWM technique would use less CPU, if that's an issue.
That's an interesting idea! In my situation I'll be using low-cost microcontrollers to generate the signal so PWM would be easier.
you can just have a set of pre-loaded patches and switch between them using [switch~]. I've used that with good results in a production environment.
Huh.. interesting, but wouldn't this be combinatorially prohibitive? I.e. if I have 10 patchable outputs to 10 patchable inputs, then that's (n!) = 3628800 combinations.
Hmmm.. —t3db0t
On Jan 20, 2013, at 11:53 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at wrote:
On 01/20/2013 12:08 PM, Tedb0t wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone know of existing designs to mirror the state of physical patch cables in a Pd patch? In other words, I'm going to have an installation with a bunch of physical patch cables plugged in between various pods and I'd like them to control a Pd patch.
hey tedbot,
You could also just play sine waves thru them and then feed all signals to a set of bandpass filters. Measure the amplitude of the filtered signals and you know which one you have. But perhaps your PWM technique would use less CPU, if that's an issue.
So far I've been thinking I could generate different PWM signals at each unique cable source and measure them at each receiving socket, then send the graph data to the computer and use dynamic patching to control the patch. However, I'm wary of using dynamic patching in a production environment—any thoughts?
you can just have a set of pre-loaded patches and switch between them using [switch~]. I've used that with good results in a production environment.
.hc
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list