yeah, I was thinking about this versatility. I guess "better" isn't a good word. I was thinking "more powerful"
2015-09-06 17:24 GMT-03:00 Fred Jan Kraan fjkraan@xs4all.nl:
On 2015-09-06 03:55 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 09/05/2015 11:58 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
Anyway, I don't believe 4096 is such a costy even if doing this
increases
cmputation time. And we still have other options like [partconv~] and [FIR~] in Pd. But in practice I think we'll have [buffir~] as a
better/more
versatile object/option than [FIR~] in the end.
what makes it better/more versatile than [FIR~]?
[buffir~] has an offset argument/inlet which allows you to select an arbitrary startpoint within a buffer. You might have an array with multiple filter-kernels and use the offset to switch between those (just guessing here...).
[FIR~] seems to have some optimization which probably makes it more efficient.
fdmsr IOhannes
Greetings,
Fred Jan
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