Hi folks.
Now that pd~ works well for me. I'm sad to see it is not doing what I hope
it would. Maybe I could send the patch, but it's simple so I think there's
no need.
What it does is that it takes a snapshot of the spectrum and does pretty
extensive calculations with it, gets combinations of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-12-01 19:06, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
In other words, the clocks are in sinc. So if one stops, the other waits.
is that it???
yes, that is the purpose and strength of [pd~].
miller did a paper/presentation on that topic at the 3rd
Le 01/12/11 19:06, Alexandre Torres Porres a écrit :
So then, how is it possible to have a separate process, in a separate
core, with an independent clock?
- Use separate computers? - Just open another actual Pd and send
messages to it via net objects?
Hello Alex,
Yes the easiest way is
- Original Message -
From: Nicolas Montgermont nicolas_montgerm...@yahoo.fr
To: pd-list@iem.at
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [PD] pd~ not helping, any hints?
Le 01/12/11 19:06, Alexandre Torres Porres a écrit :
So then, how is it possible
well, for the record, I tried and [netsend / netreceive] are doing the
trick.
cheers
2011/12/1 Alexandre Torres Porres por...@gmail.com
Hi folks.
Now that pd~ works well for me. I'm sad to see it is not doing what I hope
it would. Maybe I could send the patch, but it's simple so I think
Sorry, I wrote this before I received the digest with the answers.
Thanks for the replies.
[pd~] is still coming quite in handy. I'm now allowed to open 2 instances
of my abstractions that take almost 90% CPU each. Works perfectly!
Too bad it can't unsync the clocks. It's very elegant, to just
