when using mute~ (and pass~) can teh mute~ be connected to an unused
inlet of the sub-patch ?? I mean an inlet connected to nothing - my
sub-patchers have no input. Or does it need to be connected to
somethnig "real" ???
i'm sure you've figure this out by now (it's been four years...), but for anyone who's wondering (like i was just now): yes, it seems mute~ will function properly even though connected to an inlet that is in turn not connected to anything in the subpatch it serves.
pcontrol is slower than mute~.
i was running into a similar problem but now that i'm actually getting acquainted with poly~ i can really see its strength and benefits.
If nothing else, you can set polyphony on the run, depending on your CPU strength. :)
I mainly use it for muting DSP heavy sections of my patch (that aren't polyphonic anyways). I only recently discovered mute~, so it would suck to have to go back to making a poly for each module of my (already massive) patch.
I've been having a problem where my DSP is blowing up, and it seems to be coming from two modules that are using mute~. I've not fully figured out when/why it happens, but I'm gonna wrap them in poly's to be safe.
The concern is with deprecation, as it's a very useful feature for muting DSP without having to go through a ton of work to poly-fy something.
It's not too bad, just have to rename everything from 'inlet' to in~ 1' etc.. and then save it as a separate file, but it then makes updating/tweaking the overall patch more difficult as everything becomes segmented and has to be edited separately.
Also means my main patch is now 28 files (most of which are DSP muting polys).