Cycling 74 » Topic: adding signals http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/feed Thu, 20 Jun 2013 02:43:30 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=2.2.4 http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-46479 <![CDATA[adding signals]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-46479 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:53:39 +0000 Mike S had a little search for this in the forum but couldn’t find exactly what i was looking for

i have always been curious to know what the difference is between the two methods of adding signals i have shown below

i am working on a project that adds quite a large number of signals together, i was wondering what is the best way (sound quality) to go about adding the signals? i imagine i’ll have to do some reading up on dithering too, are there any quick and easy solutions?

– Pasted Max Patch, click to expand. –
]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167292 <![CDATA[Re: adding signals]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167292 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:23:57 +0000 Emmanuel Jourdan It’s exactly the same thing.

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167293 <![CDATA[Re: adding signals]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167293 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:12:13 +0000 Mike S oh……..

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167294 <![CDATA[Re: adding signals]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167294 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:22:57 +0000 jvkr
Quote:
It’s exactly the same thing.

Is it? I would say that the first case adds four signals together to which 0 is added: 4 additions. In the second case 3 additions are required. Or: better not to leave the second inlet empty.

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167295 <![CDATA[Re: adding signals]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167295 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:41:45 +0000 Roman Thilenius or why not use an empty abstraction with only an inlet
and an outlet to sum the signals.

or will that explose u komputah?

-110

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167296 <![CDATA[Re: adding signals]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167296 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:09:29 +0000 Emmanuel Jourdan inlet/outlet don’t sum the signal. I wouldn’t go that way.

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167297 <![CDATA[Re: adding signals]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167297 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:03:33 +0000 Roman Thilenius no but somewhere they will always go into the next DSP
object, dont they. Smile

it is not that i dont understand the his question. maybe
it is wrong that do that here, but i wanted to point out
that you do not need *~ at all for summing in practice.

(sometimes i think i should post when bored.)

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167298 <![CDATA[Re: adding signals]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/adding-signals/#post-167298 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:18:39 +0000 Emmanuel Jourdan let me clarify my first response. The difference between the 2 solutions shouldn’t be considered as problematic performance wise. That doesn’t mean that summing is not a good idea. For instance, the patch bellow is bad, because the summing only happens in the receive~ object, so the sum is done twice.

– Pasted Max Patch, click to expand. –
]]>