On 2015-09-06 03:55 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > On 09/05/2015 11:58 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: >> >> Anyway, I don't believe 4096 is such a costy even if doing this increases >> cmputation time. And we still have other options like [partconv~] and >> [FIR~] in Pd. But in practice I think we'll have [buffir~] as a better/more >> versatile object/option than [FIR~] in the end. > > what makes it better/more versatile than [FIR~]?
[buffir~] has an offset argument/inlet which allows you to select an arbitrary startpoint within a buffer. You might have an array with multiple filter-kernels and use the offset to switch between those (just guessing here...). [FIR~] seems to have some optimization which probably makes it more efficient. > > > > fdmsr > IOhannes Greetings, Fred Jan > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list