If you're going to wire them why not just create specific send messages?
Give every abstraction an index and send only to that one:
[r $1-foo] | etc
J
On Sep 30, 2011, at 4:13 AM, "Ingo" ingo@miamiwave.com wrote:
I actually do switch off everything possible with a spigot but the [receive]s do still need to check if the [send] message is meant to be for them or not. So once you get too many [receive] objects while sending a lot it CAN slow down the patch quite a bit. But unfortunately that only starts showing up once the patch is so big that it takes forever to replace all of the [receive] objects with wired connections.
So for now I'm trying to use wires wherever possible to address data only to the object that needs the data rather than having ten thousands of objects checking hundreds of times per second if the data is meant to be for them or not.
Ingo
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jaime Oliver [mailto:jaime.oliver2@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 30. September 2011 05:04 An: Ingo Cc: Jonathan Wilkes; Pd List Betreff: Re: [PD] Fwd: Variable number of objects?
I see...
What I do is put a spigot right after all receives and the spigot is controlled by the same messages that control switch~:
[r foo] | [spigot 0] | ...
In this way you'll at least stop using all lines and metros and the like. I am not entirely sure that having a receive immediately connected to a [spigot 0] has any computational expense, but if I'm measuring things correctly they don't. So no need to shut off receives, just send them to a closed gate....
best,
J
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Ingo ingo@miamiwave.com wrote:
Why would you have control messages going if switch~ is off?
Because the voice gets assigned to a certain midi channel when it
receives a
[noteon] and has to keep receiving all midi controllers on that channel until the envelope release has finished. Then the next voice will play
on
that same midi channel. There is nothing that cuts off the control
inlets or
[send/receive]s automatically because the audio gets switched off. So when you play 16 notes in a row all 16 voices are set up to receive control data on that particular midi channel. Everything in the control domain, like LFOs, [metro]s and [line]s keep running and keep
calculating
pitch, volume, filter offsets and so on ...
Turning off the [receive]s would be very complicated if not impossible
which
is why they need to be avoided wherever it can be done. But all of the
wired
inlets can be cut off manually together with the [switch~] and turned
back
on when the next note will play that voice. On top of it all 500
parameters
need to be updated to the current state of the external control input
and
the current preset data when played anew.
Ingo
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jaime Oliver [mailto:jaime.oliver2@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. September 2011 19:56 An: Ingo Cc: Jonathan Wilkes; Pd List Betreff: Re: [PD] Fwd: Variable number of objects?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Ingo ingo@miamiwave.com wrote:
One shouldn't underestimate the cpu load when several hundreds of
midi
controllers per second are modulating hundreds of parameters and the
get
multiplied by 16 voices constantly because the control messages are
still
active all of the time.
Why would you have control messages going if switch~ is off?
J
Ingo
----- Original Message ----- > From: Ingo ingo@miamiwave.com > To: 'Roman Haefeli' reduzent@gmail.com; 'Ludwig Maes' ludwig.maes@gmail.com > Cc: 'Pd List' pd-list@iem.at > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:33 AM > Subject: Re: [PD] Fwd: Variable number of objects? > > Actually, I just tried again to simply copy a couple of voices and
it
only > took a fraction of a second with a very short dropout - even with
the
dsp > on. > > I have recently installed Natty instead of Lucid on a new machine.
Maybe
it > has something to do with realloc that Mathieu mentioned. > > So it looks like dynamic patching of voices isn't "that" much of a > problem > here anymore. It still takes 7-8 seconds to create 16 voices in my
case
with > the dsp off (12 with the dsp on) but that's still faster than
restarting
the > patch. I would never have checked again if nobody would have
mentioned
it. > > I have attached a patch that I used for testing. These voices were receiving > their input with [receive] so no connections were needed. If you
are
using > wired inlets you will have to dynamically add the connections of
course.
> > I added a cut & paste at the end because for some reasons the
voices
> didn't > get initialized correctly. Not sure if this is needed for other > voice-abstractions. > > Ingo > > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: pd-list-bounces@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-bounces@iem.at] Im
Auftrag
von >> Roman Haefeli >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. September 2011 08:36 >> An: Ludwig Maes >> Cc: Pd List >> Betreff: Re: [PD] Fwd: Variable number of objects? >> >> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 19:29 +0200, Ludwig Maes wrote: >> > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: Ludwig Maes ludwig.maes@gmail.com >> > Date: 28 September 2011 19:29 >> > Subject: Re: [PD] Variable number of objects? >> > To: Ingo ingo@miamiwave.com >> > >> > >> > I actually meant more in general, also for non-~ signals (i.e.
also
>> > control rate .pd patches). I referred to polysynth such that
people
>> > would see more easily what I meant. Are there really no such >> > primitives? That seems like quite a restriction... >> > >> > How can that take 10 seconds?? I dont see what would cause
such a
huge >> > overhead, i'd expect an increase in computations & memory > though (say >> > from 10 voices to 11: 10% increase in cpu workload & ram
dedicated
> to >> > these voices..., I fail to see what would necessitate a long >> > initialization...) >> > >> > also, how is it done even with the long delays? >> > >> >> >> As I understand it, the whole DSP is recompiled whenever it is changed. >> So, if you have a very large patch (and Ingo seems to be an
expert
in
>> very large patches) and you create another voice, it's easily
possible
>> to eat up quite some time. >> >> Also, it's probably much slower the first time, if the voice > abstraction >> is built of many other abstractions, which need to be read from
disk.
>> >> But I guess you are right about the increase in CPU workload
_after_
the >> DSP graph has been recompiled: A switch from 10 two 11 instances
is
>> expected to show only an increase of 10% in CPU usage. >> >> It's been said, that often you can gain quite some time while
turning
>> off DSP during dynamic instantiation. But I guess, this makes
only
a
>> difference when performing several instantiations at the same
time.
When >> DSP is on, each cycle would cause a complete DSP graph
recompilation,
>> whereas when DSP is off, it's only recompiled once (after
turning
it
on >> again). >> >> >> >> Roman >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pd-list@iem.at mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Jaime E Oliver LR
www.jaimeoliver.pe
858 750 0924 (cel) 858 202 1522 (home)
-- Jaime E Oliver LR
www.jaimeoliver.pe
858 750 0924 (cel) 858 202 1522 (home)