Hi,
What is more efficient for recording, say, a +15 minute 16 channel performance: a single writesf with 16 channels or 8 writesf object with 2 channels each?
Bonus question: What if I place a stereo writesf inside a patch and run 8 separate pd~ objects?
The context: recording network performance using Netty McNetface. This is why I'm trying to reduce as much processing from the main patch while staying within pd-land. (Routing multichannel audio out to another daw would be an option that I'm not considering right now)
Thanks!
f fdch.github.io
Hola Fede,
I have now turned to recording stuff in ardour using JACK, thereby relieving Pd from spending any resources writing files.
best,
J
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 1:00 PM Fede Camara Halac camarafede@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
What is more efficient for recording, say, a +15 minute 16 channel performance: a single writesf with 16 channels or 8 writesf object with 2 channels each?
Bonus question: What if I place a stereo writesf inside a patch and run 8 separate pd~ objects?
The context: recording network performance using Netty McNetface. This is why I'm trying to reduce as much processing from the main patch while staying within pd-land. (Routing multichannel audio out to another daw would be an option that I'm not considering right now)
Thanks!
f fdch.github.io
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Personally I would use a single [writesf~].
Each [writesf~] has its own background thread where most of the time is being spent waiting for disk, so I'd say there's no point in parallelizing by using several [writesf~] objects. On the contrary, you only end up with more context switches.
Personally, I occasionally experience audio dropouts when using many [readsf~] objects which I attribute to the excessive mutex locking since the objects are not really CPU intensive...
Christof
PS: I think that all [readsf~] resp. [writesf~] objects should really share a single IO thread and use a lockfree fifo instead of mutexes (like in SuperCollider)...
On 28.09.2020 19:51, Fede Camara Halac wrote:
Hi,
What is more efficient for recording, say, a +15 minute 16 channel performance: a single writesf with 16 channels or 8 writesf object with 2 channels each?
Bonus question: What if I place a stereo writesf inside a patch and run 8 separate pd~ objects?
The context: recording network performance using Netty McNetface. This is why I'm trying to reduce as much processing from the main patch while staying within pd-land. (Routing multichannel audio out to another daw would be an option that I'm not considering right now)
Thanks!
f fdch.github.io
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
One writesf~ is better.
If you want to extract the wavs to their own track, well they're basically broadcast wavs. I'm quite fond of BWF.
Just be aware that it's 32 bit unless they've updated it to 64 bit wav and you'll have a 4 gb size limit which for multichannel wavs uses up rather quickly.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:00 AM Fede Camara Halac camarafede@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
What is more efficient for recording, say, a +15 minute 16 channel performance: a single writesf with 16 channels or 8 writesf object with 2 channels each?
Bonus question: What if I place a stereo writesf inside a patch and run 8 separate pd~ objects?
The context: recording network performance using Netty McNetface. This is why I'm trying to reduce as much processing from the main patch while staying within pd-land. (Routing multichannel audio out to another daw would be an option that I'm not considering right now)
Thanks!
f fdch.github.io
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Christof Ressi -
Fede Camara Halac -
Jaime Oliver -
Josh Moore