There is a lot of plumbing required to update parameters in a Live set at audio rate and keep things cool in Live. Note that you can send a different value for each sample and the CPU will not increase over that value. Also adding multiple live.remote~s hooked up in this way does not continue to add CPU load at the same rate.

Apart from that, it is a bit of a hit.If you don’t have to update things at sample rate, then don’t. Unhooking the audio patch cord and sending a float is cheap.

-A

http://cycling74.com/forums/topic.php?id=25139

the big question is the difference between plug-in parameter modulation and MFL device parameter modulation. if anyone can use the demonstration patch (attached to the other post) and record their own cpu numbers, that would be great and probably help track this down. i doubt my machine is the only one that sees a 75% cpu increase when you target a MFL device instead of a Live plug-in.

if Andrew or anyone similarly knowledgible can comment, it would be appreciated. if this situation seems right and/or likely to stay this way for a while, i will drop some of my development efforts that are underway.

thanks, all, particularly the busy elves.

–dave linnenbank

Andrew Pask, what do you mean with this phrase?

“Also adding multiple live.remote~s hooked up in this way does not continue to add CPU load at the same rate”

thank’s.

Lorenzo

-A