phiol

this is my first post in this forum and the question that I have is a very simple one.

(I've searched in the max tutorials and found no indications on this.)

My question is , how many different paired buffer~ and groove~ objects can you have running at the same time in a single patch window before you oversaturate you buffer. (Can I have up to 7 or more with no problem?) How much can max/msp handle?

Thank you very much for your time and concern.

Hi 
this is my first post in this forum and the question that I have is a very simple one.
(I've searched in the max tutorials and found no indications on this.) 

My question is , how many different paired buffer~ and groove~ objects can you have running at the same time in a single patch window before you oversaturate you buffer. (Can I have up to 7 or more with no problem?) How much can max/msp handle? 

buffer-and-groove-objects

Some others might have better insight into this than I do, but as far as I know you are only limited by the amount of memory you have in your computer.

What is important is not the number of buffers (though I would assume each buffer object does have some overhead) but the size of each buffer.

Also, keep in mind that when you load an audio file into a buffer, it is converted to 32 bit, so the memory overhead may be greater than the size of the file on disk.

I have a live setup that involves the manipulation of audio files stored in buffers. I have 9 buffers and often load many audio files that are up to 16 measures in length. I have had no problems with this setup so far. I have 1.5Gb memory on my computer.

Some others might have better insight into this than I do, but as far as I know you are only limited by the amount of memory you have in your computer. 

What is important is not the number of buffers (though I would assume each buffer object does have some overhead) but the size of each buffer. 

I have a live setup that involves the manipulation of audio files stored in buffers. I have 9 buffers and often load many audio files that are up to 16 measures in length. I have had no problems with this setup so far. I have 1.5Gb memory on my computer.


Besides the RAM limit, there is also the processor limit (CPU percentage). You can either monitor the CPU with the "DSP status" window (in the "Options" menu) or with the utility of your operating system. On some computers, the sound can be altered (clicks, pops, glitches, etc) far before the CPU reaches 100%. Increasing or reducing the latency can have an important impact on this too ...

I often use a polyphonic sampler that has stereo [buffer~] and [groove~] objects. There is one stereo [groove~] per voice (and also some filters and envelopes) ; the [buffer~] are "outside" the voices.

The maximum number of [buffer~] depend on the sample sizes and the disponible RAM (though there is some swap with the hard disk so the RAM is not the only important component here). 

The maximum number of [groove~] depend on the computer itself and has to do with CPU percentage. On a laptop, when increasing the polyphony, you can get about 30-50 of them, while on a (crappier) desktop you can go over 100. In this sampler, the filters are the more consuming actually ...

For sure you can have seven groove~ and buffer~ on almost any computer.

I often use a polyphonic sampler that has stereo [buffer~] and [groove~] objects. There is one stereo [groove~] per voice (and also some filters and envelopes) ; the [buffer~] are "outside" the voices.
The maximum number of [buffer~] depend on the sample sizes and the disponible RAM (though there is some swap with the hard disk so the RAM is not the only important component here). 
The maximum number of [groove~] depend on the computer itself and has to do with CPU percentage. On a laptop, when increasing the polyphony, you can get about 30-50 of them, while on a (crappier) desktop you can go over 100. In this sampler, the filters are the more consuming actually ...

For sure you can have seven groove~ and buffer~ on almost any computer.


I was somewhat aware that max msp was only limited by the computer power but I don't really know what are the limits of mine! 

I have a osx 10.4.8- 1.33 Ghz PPc with 768 of ram and am running on maxmsp 4.6.

I realize that max is computer friendly in interface size compared to other software. But still I don't know how far I can push my computer. Obviously , I want to avoid any live crashes.

And maybe it's just a question of creating a patch that is more effecient in processing steps. 

So my real question would be; If a patch is an instrument and I want to control a least 4 instruments, is it better to have 4 windows running or to copy paste 4 patches in the same window or does this change anything at all based on the fact that everything is processed using the same ram and cpu.

And finally , does max act differently if you load multiple samples in a step or pulse sequencer instead of having many buffer~ and groove~ acting at the same time. I have a feeling the 1st would be more effecient? Or is it exactly the same thing?

Thank you very much for you time. This is helping me alot.

Thank you very much for the insights.
I was somewhat aware that max msp was only limited by the computer power but I don't really know what are the limits of mine! 
I have a osx 10.4.8- 1.33 Ghz PPc with 768 of ram and am running on maxmsp 4.6.

I realize that max is computer friendly in interface size compared to other software. But still I don't know how far I can push my computer. Obviously , I want to avoid any live crashes. 

And maybe it's just a question of creating a patch that is more effecient in processing steps. 
So my real question would be; If a patch is an instrument and I want to control a least 4 instruments, is it better to have 4 windows running or to copy paste 4 patches in the same window or does this change anything at all based on the fact that everything is processed using the same ram and cpu. 

Thank you very much for you time. This is helping me alot.


> And finally , does max act differently if you load multiple samples

> in a step or pulse sequencer instead of having many buffer~ and

> groove~ acting at the same time. I have a feeling the 1st would be

> more effecient? Or is it exactly the same thing?

The answer to this kind of questions isn't really important. Just get 

your hands dirty, there is a long time till you hit the limits of your 

computer. By then you will have much more experience and knowledge to 

answer most of them yourself. Max is a language which lets you just do 

it the way you think. Don't worry too much about technical problems 

Its more important to keep the way of your thinking free, than 

restricting yourself by the fear for possible problems...

phil schrieb:
> And finally , does max act differently if you load multiple samples
> in a step or pulse sequencer instead of having many buffer~ and
> groove~ acting at the same time. I have a feeling the 1st would be
> more effecient? Or is it exactly the same thing?

The answer to this kind of questions isn't really important. Just get 
your hands dirty, there is a long time till you hit the limits of your 
computer. By then you will have much more experience and knowledge to 
answer most of them yourself. Max is a language which lets you just do 
it the way you think. Don't worry too much about technical problems 
which even didn't bite you yet...

Its more important to keep the way of your thinking free, than 
restricting yourself by the fear for possible problems...

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com

Buffer~ and groove~ objects