I think one advantage of using tables is the fact that one could start playing anywhere in the sound file. It is not the case with reasf~, right ? (might not interest Patrick, but it is interesting for me)
Then, using tabread4~ would consume too much CPU, right ?
So, dynamic table + tabread creation with throws would be the way to go.
Do you guys know a way to clear only several objects of a subpatch ? I use [; pd-subpatch clear< for now. But I would prefer not to clear everything.
aalex
On 6/14/06, IOhIannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig@iem.at> wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> patrick hat gesagt: // patrick wrote:
> I think, the problem more is how to load so many samples clickfree
> into memory. As samples loaded into an array get blown up in size, for
> 300 2MB samples you already need a lot of memory. It probably will be
> better to load only the samples to play currently and next into
> memory, and reuse the tables that store the samples to save memory.
>
> If the samples only need to be played, [readsf~] would be the easiest,
> almost trivial solution to this. If you need [table]-based processing
> things will be quite a bit trickier, as soundfiler in standard Pd can
> lead to dropouts. pd-devel can be one way out, using [readsf~] to
> write into a [table] faster than realtime could be another way (by
> upsampling using [block~]).
i guess the simplest thing would be to use [readsf~] for playback of the
samples from a ramdisk: this way the samples will still be kept at 16bit
(or whatever you choose) and thus take little memory and the access to
the ramdisk will be lightning fast.
mfg.asdr.
IOhannes
_______________________________________________
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
--
Alexandre Quessy
http://alexandre.quessy.net