Thomas Goepfer

How do you name this problem ? Overhead ?

I want to connect a lot of poly~ directly in a matrix~, without the combo send~/receive~. I did that with abstraction with a couple of tapin~/tapout~ before the outlet, but inside a poly~, tapin~/tapout~, strangely, doesn't work... humhum...

(for example : with a poly~ named "my_poly" like this:

What is the tip ?
(except waiting max 5...)

this doesn't work.
and if I modify "my_poly":

how-connect-a-poly-to-matrix

On 22 avr. 07, at 12:08, Thomas Goepfer wrote:

> How do you name this problem ? Overhead ?

> I want to connect a lot of poly~ directly in a matrix~, without the 

> combo send~/receive~. I did that with abstraction with a couple of 

> tapin~/tapout~ before the outlet, but inside a poly~, tapin~/ 

> tapout~, strangely, doesn't work... humhum...

You'll have to put the tapin~/tapout~ outside the poly~ object.

> The newbie question...
>
> How do you name this problem ? Overhead ?
>
> I want to connect a lot of poly~ directly in a matrix~, without the  
> combo send~/receive~. I did that with abstraction with a couple of  
> tapin~/tapout~ before the outlet, but inside a poly~, tapin~/ 
> tapout~, strangely, doesn't work... humhum...
>
> What is the tip ?

yes, it's a solution (and it works !...).

yes, it's a solution (and it works !...).
It's the only solution ?...


On Apr 22, 2007, at 4:26 AM, Thomas Goepfer wrote:

> yes, it's a solution (and it works !...).

Correct. poly~'s internal DSP chain is a separate entity from the 

external DSP chain, and the tricks to remove feedback loops do not 

transfer from the poly~ internal DSP chain to the outer DSP chain.

> yes, it's a solution (and it works !...).
> It's the only solution ?...

Correct. poly~'s internal DSP chain is a separate entity from the  
external DSP chain, and the tricks to remove feedback loops do not  
transfer from the poly~ internal DSP chain to the outer DSP chain.

How connect a poly~ to matrix~ ?...