Re: Clarification about [pd~]
oliver <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.multimedia.puredata.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> 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. Hi, List ! I stumbled over one question recently, regarding [pd~]. PD (with Audio operations) and PD with video (GEM) are best run in 2 seperate instances of PD, right ? (As video operations can cause audio dropouts) So, given these informations about [pd~], running a GEM patch inside an audio PD patch using [pd~) is not going to be better than having audio and video in the same patch, right ? (because [pd~] is synchronous to its parent) So, for an "asynchronous" situation, i still need to start two seperate instances of PD to keep audio and video truly seperated ? Thanks for clarifications ! Best Oliver --- [email protected] - the Pure Data mailinglist https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/EU5IZC5XZPVDNWQWGGWNYUVDGNCYFNSF/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.iem.at/