Forums > MaxMSP

Equivalent to (target) for signals

July 31, 2009 | 11:32 pm

I know you can send messages to specific instances of a [poly~] by using a target message. Is there any way to do the same thing with audio signals? I’ve got a filter that I would like to make multi-channel and thought it would be good to do it as a [poly~] for efficiency purposes. Is there a way to route audio signals to a specific instance of [poly~]? Thanks.



Eli
August 1, 2009 | 2:05 am

My first thought is [send~].
In order to create a unique name for each [send~] you could use the output from [thispoly~] to find the instance number, then convert that into an alphanumeric character using [itoa], then take that character and use the "set" message to individually name each [send~] in the different instances of [poly~]. There may be a more efficient way, though!

Eli


August 1, 2009 | 9:39 am

Using [send~] and [receive~] inside a [poly~] is not the best idea due to the issues described in this thread. I’d recommend using seperate inlets and using the instance number from [thispoly~] to control a [matrix~] or [selector~] to contrl the routing.

lh


August 1, 2009 | 5:45 pm

I understand using thispoly~ along with a matrix, but how do I get the separate in~ and out~ objects to work with different instances of poly~?


August 1, 2009 | 5:52 pm

Nevermind, I figured it out. The matrix goes between the inlets and the processing of the subpatch. Thanks for the tip!


August 12, 2009 | 4:21 pm
bkshepard wrote on Sat, 01 August 2009 01:32
I’ve got a filter that I would like to make multi-channel and thought it would be good to do it as a [poly~] for efficiency purposes.

Do not assume poly~s are more efficient, in the contrary they have an overhead which eats some extra cycles. It is much more efficient patching though. Maybe in your case you don’t need poly~ at all and come along better with a simple matrix~…

Stefan


August 12, 2009 | 11:06 pm

Yeah, that’s a good point. When I was trying to decide which way to go, I did a side-by-side comparison of doing a patch as a poly vs doing it as a basic subpatcher. The poly definitely eats a few more CPU cycles. I probably should have been clearer on my use of the word efficiency. I was referring to patcher-building efficiency. I also get the window to open faster when the subpatch is a poly than when it is a basic subpatcher. Thanks for the reminder, though.


Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)