mute~ or poly~ for single abstraction muting?

    Mar 01 2010 | 7:03 pm
    i have an abstraction i want to mute the dsp cpu hog in on the fly. so, if i use [mute~ 1] into it (with a [pass~] before the output) and [enable 0 0] into a pcontrol into it, will this do the same cpu free-ing as if i wrapped it up for use in poly~ (with only 1 instance) and muted that? ie, do i need to bother with poly~ in this situation (as i have in the past) or can i safely use the much simpler mute~ & pass~ and enable & pcontrol idea? anyone know?

    • Mar 16 2010 | 8:36 pm
      sorry i cant help, but i am also trying to figure this out as well...
    • Mar 16 2010 | 9:59 pm
      i would like to know how to use a [poly~] inside an abstraction. so far i cant, but there must be a way if you cant use the [mute~]/[pass~] method...
    • Mar 18 2010 | 7:24 pm
      You don't put poly~ inside an abstraction, you place the abstraction inside a poly~ actually.
      You must put a thispoly~ object within the patch loaded by poly~ and send the mute (0/1) messages to this object.
    • Mar 19 2010 | 2:06 am
      poly is better then mute/pass or disbaling singe objects. far better. definetly worth the effort to learn it.
    • Mar 19 2010 | 10:47 am
      hi roman, thanks, at last (!). i know poly~ well, i was just wondering. have you got any hard evidence to back up your claim (no disrespect!) before i go re-editing all my patches now (i went the mute~/pass~ method!)? i am really bad at 'hard evidence'. some of the patches are very small, others larger and would be more poly~-obvious.
    • Mar 19 2010 | 4:14 pm
      Never change a winning team. If your patch works with mute~/pass~ leave it as it is... But in my experience its way more hassle to make a patch working with mute~/pass~ than with poly~ mostly for the reason, that it often doesn't mute the subpatchers. Sometimes I never found out why there was a problem.
      With poly~ it is really simple. Just place your abstraction into a poly~, you only need to adapt the in~s and out~s. If its a single voice poly~ you don't even need to know anything about how to deal with the voice allocation...
      You can also choose freely if you want to control the muting from inside or from outside the poly~...
      Back in those days when computers had been much slower, there was a little overhead in CPU comparing these methods. Nowadays its completely irrelevant...
      I don't see any advantage in using mute~/pass~. Its much more complicated and pretty unreliable...
      But as I said, if your patch works, don't bother, unless you use them as part of your library. Then it will be worth to streamline them...