Multiple send~ delay?


    Apr 13 2014 | 8:56 pm
    Lovely mates of the nerdland,
    When there are multiple send~ receive~ pairs in a dsp chain, introduced delay is multiplied by the number of pairs?
    I could test this, but rather choose to enjoy a quicker answer!
    Best of the best,
    t.

    • Apr 13 2014 | 9:13 pm
      yes, one vector per
      use [send] with signals with no delay where possible
    • Apr 13 2014 | 9:37 pm
      hmm. so there is no way to make use of send or send~ for the purpose of re-arranging a dsp chain (e.g an fx chain)? once send~ is used delay presents itself, once send is used, dsp should be restarted.. am i correct?
    • Apr 14 2014 | 12:55 am
      hm. more or less. at least if it is a very big system, it could be a good idea to do it with the restart method. i soemtimes use the non MSP [gate] object to route audio, this also needs a restart after every change.
      for a small system you could just connect everything hardwired, and then do *~ 0. and *~ 1. to open a path. ;)
    • Apr 14 2014 | 1:04 am
      but msp won't bother to check if the signal's 0 or not, will it? so that it will stop the run anyway once there is a feedback present without a tapin~ or send~? so how am i supposed to do it?
    • Apr 14 2014 | 10:50 am
      well no, no way to have a feedback without a minimum of one vector delay~ one sample in gen~ world indees if you want a flexible system of routing based on a matrix~ it's a problem ! i've run into it !...
    • Apr 14 2014 | 10:53 am
      right.. but I am not looking for any feedback functionality. so there should be a way to get the off channels out of the chain. maybe with begin~? or sth like that. there was an object once like that. let me check
    • Apr 14 2014 | 7:40 pm
      if you are building a system where you can freely route audio, that one vector delay of [send~] will be required anyway.
      if you build a linear system, routing the signals using gate~/selector~/matrix~ will be enough, or other words, [send] should not really be required if renaming the [r] and breaking the signal chain bothers you.
      option #4 is to use poly~, i.e. you have everything connected and now only turn stuff on and off and/or exchange the patcher in the poly~.
      -110
    • Apr 15 2014 | 12:15 am
      Well I don't think it is possible. How can it be possible?
      say FX1's input and output are named in1-out1, and FX2: in2-out2 and so on...
      In one setting out1 will need to feed in2, in another out2, in1. So all FX outlets should be connected to all inlets except for their own AT ALL TIMES.So msp won't let any signal flow. How can gate~/selector~/matrix~ etc. help in this case?
      Seems like poly~ won't be a solution either, since it's not possible to feed audio from one instance to another in a linear fashion. Or am I missing sth?
      If you could give a concrete example, I'd be more than glad Roman.
    • Apr 15 2014 | 11:08 pm
      it does help raja. thank you very much for teaching me and also roman...