Re: Clarification about [pd~]

IOhannes m zmoelnig <[email protected]> Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:39:01 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.multimedia.puredata.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On 3/24/25 18:23, Pier Bar wrote:
>>
>> You would typically use it for offloading audio processing to another CPU
>> core, in particular if a single CPU cannot handle the full workload.
>>
> 
> So it seems intended for audio rather than control signal operations...
> 
i see how you come to this conclusion by christof's wording.

however, i wouldn't say that this is necessarily true.

the important fact to understand is, that the output of [pd~] is still 
fully deterministic (by keeping the operations *synchronous* with the 
parent Pd).

therefore, it is ill-suited for asynchronous offline processing (like 
training a neural network for 10 minutes at "full speed").

instead i would say that it is a good tool if you can formulate the 
problem like this: "I have a cool patch X that works great with the 
desired latency. I have another cool patch Y that also works nicely. But 
if I use them together, things start to fall apart."
then you could run e.g. patch Y in a separate [pd~] instance.

fgdam
IOhannes

---
[email protected] - the Pure Data mailinglist
https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/KXKGQC63R7AUB5CKEJHBWQLCUFHENTLK/

To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.iem.at/

OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 840 B)