On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Frank Barknecht <f...@footils.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 01:07:21PM +0200, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote: > > Frank Barknecht escribió: > > > *If* order matters to you (it may not always do) you can still use > > >the subpatch approach with dummy inlet~/outlet~ objects. > > > > That's the part I don't understand. I mean I can't figure out the > > trick. I can easily imagine (and actually tried) how to patch things > > to force the desired order, but then again, I see myself obliged to > > do the wired connections that the [s~]/[r~]s were meant to avoid. > > > > May you please make an example of the technique? I would be so grateful. > > Attached is a very stupid example, which should show what I mean: Here > various abstractions are layed out in a way, that they execute in order. > Only one connection is used for order forcing, but still many s~/r~ are > active, all properly ordered. > > Real life examples may not be so easy to sort, of course. > > > >And don't forget the other application of s~/r~ where you actually > > >*want* to have a delay of one block: feedback algorithms. > > > > Yeah but in that case I would rather use a [delread~]/[delwrite~] pair, > ¿no? > > Well, you could, but s~/r~ is much easier to use. Also > delread~/delwrite~ with a delay set to 0 won't have a delay of 0 in > feedback situations, so it may even be more confusing. > > > Wow that sounds very interesting. I hope you will publish the paper > > on the internet so we can have a look > > It will be in the LAC proceedings available on lac.linuxaudio.org soon. > I'll keep checking but it would be real nice if you could post it here when available. I hear some of my friends using this technique rather successfully... Thanks, Andras
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list