Dear Pierpaolo, not an expert on this issue but...
* Pier Bar <[email protected]> [2025-03-24 13:49]: > Hello Pd community, > > I've encountered an interesting behavior regarding CPU management in Pure > Data using [pd~], and I'd appreciate your insights or confirmations. > > Here's my scenario: > > I'm running a computationally "intensive" FFT analysis with sigmund~ > (similar to the 17.partialtracer example, but without using data > structures), on a 4-second audio array. This analysis is causing "Audio I/O > Error" warnings and audible dropouts when executed within the main Pd > patch, DSP active, latency ~50ms... Increasing the latency further would > solve the problem, but I would like to find another solution. ...are you able to track the single Pd instance audio errors down to CPU usage? Does a simpler patch with lower cpu usage not print these errors? Have you tried to change other audio options? I am not on OS X so I don't know if -callback or -rt have any effect there. > Initially, I attempted to resolve this by offloading the computation into a > subprocess via [pd~]. However, despite what seemed to be a correct > configuration (no audio signals shared, only control messages exchanged, > -nogui option used), I still observed audio dropouts and "Audio I/O Error" > warnings in the main patch. > > otherwise when running two completely separate instances of Pd manually, > that is two versions of Pd, 0.55-1 and 0.55-2 (one dedicated to real-time > audio and another solely for the FFT analysis, without using [pd~]), my > system (macOS Apple Silicon M3) handled both processes simultaneously > without any audio dropouts or errors. Out of interest: Do both pd instances in this case access your hardware I/Os? best, Peter --- [email protected] - the Pure Data mailinglist https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/T3ZHM7XKGV7LACQ764DH2MIBG26K4Z4A/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.iem.at/
