Thanks, Roman, but I'm already using [switch~] inside each FX, to stop processing the signal. I learned it some time ago, from here:

http://puredata.hurleur.com/viewtopic.php?pid=35939#p35939

But I think that [receive~] and [throw~] are still using CPU.

I didn't try to use inlet~ and outlet~, because I have to make 400 conections at hand... that's why I asking first. If it will work, I'll do it (or find a way to automatically do it)





El 05/08/13 09:29, Roman Haefeli escribió:
Hi Mario

Check [switch~] and its help patch.

Roman


On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 09:03 -0300, Mario Mey wrote:
Hi, there... I really need some help.

I'm working on a looper-multi-effects (big) patch. It has more than,
more or less, 100 stereo FXs. They are all inside the patch as
abstracts. But, to avoid them to consume CPU, each one has a [switch~ 0]
if it is not working. So, there're only two FX at a time, where the DSP
is on. Something like this:

Main patch:

adc~
|     \
|     [s $0-pre-r]
[s $0-pre-l]

[catch~ $0-post-l]
|         [catch~ $0-post-r]
|        /
[dac~]

(the same for

Each FX as file-abstracts (using [fx1 $0] to call them) inside the main
patch:

[r $1-pre-l]       [r $1-pre-r]
|                  /
[The-FX-itself.....]
|                  \
[throw~ $1-post-l] [throw~ $1-post-r]


[0(     [1(
|       /
[switch~]


This technics DOES work very well.  Buuut... when having 100 FX at the
same time (even not working), the CPU increase 15-20%. I repeat,
there're only two FX working at the time. The rest are "turned-off".

For now, the CPU use is:

Ready-to-use, 2 FXs on, DSP on: 47%
Recorded and playing 8 stereo-banks, 2 FXs being used, DSP on: 60 - 62%
(I have quite a few XRUNS)
Ready-to-use, 2 FXs on, DSP off: 7%

As you can see, the non-signal processing is very low.

What I think is that each FX is working when receiving and/or throwing
signal (200 [receive~] and [throw~] objects)... even they are sending
and/or processing nothing.

Is there any other way to connect all the FXs to the main patch and to
have a lower CPU consumption?

Maybe [inlet~] and [outlet~] consume less CPU? (I should connect all the
FX at hand... or find a aumotated way to do it)

Thanks a lot.




Mario Mey

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list


_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list


_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Reply via email to