On 12/6/21 17:57, Peter P. wrote:
Is this know, explainable and does it "mean" something? ;)
it's known (that is: the group of problems to which this one belongs)here's a layman explanation (that i haven't actually checked with the source code):
whenever you patch with signal objects (that is: create a new object~, delete a object~, connet object~s), the DSP graph gets re-compiled (if dsp is on). this is not true for non-signal objects: adding/connecting non-signal objects is not going to change the DSP graph, so it is not re-compiled (however, it does need to be recompiled if you remove a non-signal object...why? just think [table]).
now with your single [dac~] object, there is not much of a DSP-graph to compute, so Pd obviously does nothing. esp. the float-to-signal conversion seems to be not activated yet. adding a single msgbox and connecting it to [dac~] doesn't change anything in this regard, so Pd doesn't "notice" that it now has to actually do the float-to-signal forwarding.
you can force a re-compilation of the DSP graph (which will make Pd pick up the float-to-signal conversion) by saving your patch (notice that get the click). you can also force it by removing any object (or msgbox!) - which you already know.
you could also connect a [sig~ 0] to the *second* inlet of the [dac~] tat the beginning: this will not do much except creating a (small) DSP-graph of which [dac~] is part of. if you then create you msgbox and send [1( to the *first* (otherwise unconnected) inlet of [dac~] you also get a click.
gfmds IOhannes
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
