Re: delays and buffers

Es war der 29.06.2008 20:24 Uhr, als nescivi nicht widerstehen konnte,
folgende Gedanken dem Netz anzuvertrauen:

> Note, there is a difference between the cpu indication of the server, and the
> one in activity monitor (or top). The latter is the actual used cpu, the
> other is how much of the block processing time is taken up.
>
> The second one is indeed more hungry with regard to the scsynth indication.

I meant only the server cpu indication.

> But... if you are going up to a certain amount of taps in the delay, it will
> eventually become more effiicient to do a convolution.

But I want to process the taps separately as well as send them to different
busses.

> It should be trivial to make pseudo-ugens which make this conversion.

yes, but in my opinion it is the wrong way as samples and feedback (instead
of delaytime and decaytime) are the "natural" ingredients for a delay.
Using a pseudo ugen or any conversion method to convert from samples to
delaytime whereas the delay needs internally anyway samples - these
inefficient back and forth calculations wouldn't be necessary if there were
also samples based delays.



best

Andre


--------------------------------------------------
Andre Bartetzki
http://www.bartetzki.de
mailto:andre@...

Tel   +49-(0)30-92375877
VoIP  +49-(0)30-38108677
Fax   +49-(0)30-38108678

Skype bartetzki
http://www.myspace.com/andrebartetzki
--------------------------------------------------



_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list


info (subscribe and unsubscribe): http://swiki.hfbk-hamburg.de:8888/MusicTechnology/880
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/