I have a question about interpolation, as in [tabread4~] vs. [tabread~] ... my performance environment often has like 20-40 samplers playing simultaneously and its really beggining to bog down my cpu to the poitn where i'm getting dropouts, so i'm looking for ways of optimizing my patches. i'm using tabread4~'s in it because i though this is more "correct" but i really dont know much about it. how much does it really affect the sound if i am just using it as a simple sampler? how much effeiciency gain can i expect from using non interpolated tabread?
thanks.
-josh
Hallo, Josh Steiner hat gesagt: // Josh Steiner wrote:
I have a question about interpolation, as in [tabread4~] vs. [tabread~] ... my performance environment often has like 20-40 samplers playing simultaneously and its really beggining to bog down my cpu to the poitn where i'm getting dropouts, so i'm looking for ways of optimizing my patches. i'm using tabread4~'s in it because i though this is more "correct" but i really dont know much about it. how much does it really affect the sound if i am just using it as a simple sampler? how much effeiciency gain can i expect from using non interpolated tabread?
Why not just try it?
If you don't resample your samples, i.e. play everything at the same, natural speed, you won't get any artivacts at all when using tabread, as you don't need to interpolate at all.
But if you play your samples faster or slower, 4-point interpolation has advantages. I don't have any reference material at hand ATM, about how much the introduced noise will be, but I know, that it's discussed in the Dodge/Jerse "Computer Music" book. So if you can find that...
ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Josh Steiner hat gesagt: // Josh Steiner wrote:
I have a question about interpolation, as in [tabread4~] vs. [tabread~] ... my performance environment often has like 20-40 samplers playing simultaneously and its really beggining to bog down my cpu to the poitn where i'm getting dropouts, so i'm looking for ways of optimizing my patches. i'm using tabread4~'s in it because i though this is more "correct" but i really dont know much about it. how much does it really affect the sound if i am just using it as a simple sampler? how much effeiciency gain can i expect from using non interpolated tabread?
Why not just try it?
i did and didnt notice any artifacts, but its hard to tell sometimes and i wouldnt want to rely on non interp. if later on i started to notice the artifacts :)
actualy... the cpu usage with [tabread~] and [tabread4~] is identical in my little test here... hrm... i wonder if there are any more effiecient sample players... anyone have any suggestions? i guess i'll go try out xsample/xgroove...
If you don't resample your samples, i.e. play everything at the same, natural speed, you won't get any artivacts at all when using tabread, as you don't need to interpolate at all.
But if you play your samples faster or slower, 4-point interpolation has advantages.
ok, i do play back at variing speed so looks like i should stick with the interp. tabread.
I don't have any reference material at hand ATM, about how much the introduced noise will be, but I know, that it's discussed in the Dodge/Jerse "Computer Music" book. So if you can find that...
ciao
i read over MSP's chapter on interp. and all i got was a big wooshing sound as it shot over my head :)
Hi Josh, i generally can't recommend non-interpolating resampling except you're always using very noisy sounds. The purer and lower-frequency your sounds are the more you'll notice the resampling artefacts. xsample uses the same algorithm as tabread4~ but _may_ be more efficient since it uses SIMD instructions and explicit loop unrolling. xsample also features linear (2-point) interpolation that should be a bit less cpu-consuming.
best greetings, Thomas
----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Steiner" josh@vitriolix.com To: "Frank Barknecht" fbar@footils.org Cc: "PD List" pd-list@iem.kug.ac.at Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [PD] Interpolation
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Josh Steiner hat gesagt: // Josh Steiner wrote:
I have a question about interpolation, as in [tabread4~] vs. [tabread~] ... my performance environment often has like 20-40 samplers playing simultaneously and its really beggining to bog down my cpu to the poitn where i'm getting dropouts, so i'm looking for ways of optimizing my patches. i'm using tabread4~'s in it because i though this is more "correct" but i really dont know much about it. how much does it really affect the sound if i am just using it as a simple sampler? how much effeiciency gain can i expect from using non interpolated tabread?
Why not just try it?
i did and didnt notice any artifacts, but its hard to tell sometimes and i wouldnt want to rely on non interp. if later on i started to notice the artifacts :)
actualy... the cpu usage with [tabread~] and [tabread4~] is identical in my little test here... hrm... i wonder if there are any more effiecient sample players... anyone have any suggestions? i guess i'll go try out xsample/xgroove...
If you don't resample your samples, i.e. play everything at the same, natural speed, you won't get any artivacts at all when using tabread, as you don't need to interpolate at all.
But if you play your samples faster or slower, 4-point interpolation has advantages.
ok, i do play back at variing speed so looks like i should stick with the interp. tabread.
I don't have any reference material at hand ATM, about how much the introduced noise will be, but I know, that it's discussed in the Dodge/Jerse "Computer Music" book. So if you can find that...
ciao
i read over MSP's chapter on interp. and all i got was a big wooshing sound as it shot over my head :)
-- ________________________________________________________________ live experimental electronic music -- http://bluevitriol.com independent u.s. drum'n'bass -- http://vitriolix.com
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
-
Frank Barknecht -
Josh Steiner -
Thomas Grill