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