Same question about outputting mc signals out of poly~ while keeping them multichannel and not mixed according to poly~'s number of voices...

Why you can't use mc.send~ and receive~ ? (Just asking because I want to do something similar)

You can do it that way - that's what I do actually - but in the same way that send~/receive~ is less CPU-efficient than in~ and out~, I suspect a direct connection would be a more efficient alternative to mc.send~/mc.receive~.

I'm pretty sure that officially send~ and receive~ is not supported inside poly~. I've been agitating for an mcs.poly~ object that would do exactly this, and it's on the FR list somewhere...

\M

Send and receive for audio signals are not supported to/from poly~ indeed, but is it the case for send~/receive~?

My impression (and maybe someone from Cycling can confirm this) is that using [send] and [receive] for audio is _always_ unsupported, and using [send~] and [receive~] in [poly~] is also unsupported.

omg.... that destroys my plans :(

is there some other patcher that works like an array of patchers? actually i don't need the voice managment implemented in poly i just need to have n "channels"...

@Mattyo I guess you're right about send and receive (even if audio transmissions with these objects *do* function outside poly~).

Also, if I wasn't clear : transmissions to poly~ with mc.send~ and from poly~ with mc.receive~ function quite well. I was only checking whether there was a better option CPU-wise.

Hey Roald, I know that using send~ and receive~ works in poly~, but I'm not sure if that is officially supported, so I've avoided it in case it breaks one day. I remember years ago being told by Ben B. to avoid it, but it's possible things have changed, as I often miss little details of improvements...

\M

Hi all, Any news about mc.in~ ? fxw