Hey Folks
I'm aware that cutting the signal from an [osc~] will not actually reduce it's processor drain, nor, to my knowledge, does the frequency affect CPU usage. However, does anyone know if it'll take less processor, while not using the output of the object, to give it an argument of 0? That is to say, while the output has [*~] + 0 that zero is also set to the frequency of the [osc~] will this be any more efficient?
Thanks
Andrew
_________________________________________________________________
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
Hi, I m not sure if i actually got your question, but if you're trying to "turn off" the oscillator you should use the [switch~] object. It turns audio computation off locally. This means that if you put it in your patch it will turn audio computation on and off for the entire patch, but if you put it in a subpatch (with, say, only your osc~ inside) it will only have an effect at the subpatch level. this is a very useful object when it comes to limiting your CPU load.
Pierre
2010/1/31 Andrew Faraday jbturgid@hotmail.com
Hey Folks
I'm aware that cutting the signal from an [osc~] will not actually reduce it's processor drain, nor, to my knowledge, does the frequency affect CPU usage. However, does anyone know if it'll take less processor, while not using the output of the object, to give it an argument of 0? That is to say, while the output has [*~] + 0 that zero is also set to the frequency of the [osc~] will this be any more efficient?
Thanks
Andrew
Not got a Hotmail account? Sign-up now - Freehttp://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
That looks like it might work. Particularly with things like a patch when I may want to turn parts of my texture on or off depending on inputting data. I could cut out a whole synth algorithm etc. Thanks for that.
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:23:05 +0100 Subject: Re: [PD] Quick processor question From: pimassat@gmail.com To: jbturgid@hotmail.com CC: pd-list@iem.at
Hi, I m not sure if i actually got your question, but if you're trying to "turn off" the oscillator you should use the [switch~] object. It turns audio computation off locally. This means that if you put it in your patch it will turn audio computation on and off for the entire patch, but if you put it in a subpatch (with, say, only your osc~ inside) it will only have an effect at the subpatch level. this is a very useful object when it comes to limiting your CPU load.
Pierre
2010/1/31 Andrew Faraday jbturgid@hotmail.com
Hey Folks I'm aware that cutting the signal from an [osc~] will not actually reduce it's processor drain, nor, to my knowledge, does the frequency affect CPU usage. However, does anyone know if it'll take less processor, while not using the output of the object, to give it an argument of 0? That is to say, while the output has [*~] + 0 that zero is also set to the frequency of the [osc~] will this be any more efficient?
Thanks
Andrew
Not got a Hotmail account? Sign-up now - Free
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
The main loop of the object will still compute the value for a zero Hz signal (always 1), and output blocks. So, in this case an argument of zero shouldn't use any less CPU.
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:12:19 +0000 Andrew Faraday jbturgid@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey Folks I'm aware that cutting the signal from an [osc~] will not actually reduce it's processor drain, nor, to my knowledge, does the frequency affect CPU usage. However, does anyone know if it'll take less processor, while not using the output of the object, to give it an argument of 0? That is to say, while the output has [*~] + 0 that zero is also set to the frequency of the [osc~] will this be any more efficient? Thanks Andrew
_________________________________________________________________ We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
-
Andrew Faraday -
Andy Farnell -
Pierre Massat