re-about-metro-again

> Timer is involved. Using [date] and "ticks", there's a few errors 

> at the start (63, 62, 63, 62, ... why ?), but the clock get 

> relatively stable after this (62, 62, 62, 63...). But, when i mean 

> 'stable' it doesn't mean 'correct' : for a 1000 ms clock requested, 

> it shows the difference between two bangs is 62 ticks, not 60... Well.

If you really want to have a more precise timing measurement, use 

> Timer is involved. Using [date] and "ticks", there's a few errors  
> at the start (63, 62, 63, 62, ... why ?), but the clock get  
> relatively stable after this (62, 62, 62, 63...). But, when i mean  
> 'stable' it doesn't mean 'correct' : for a 1000 ms clock requested,  
> it shows the difference between two bangs is 62 ticks, not 60... Well.

If you really want to have a more precise timing measurement, use  
cpuclock.

I don't think the signal vector size matters if you have overdrive on. I am pretty certain that max and msp both have their own thread, and, if it be, core. Someone care to correct that?

I don't think the signal vector size matters if you have overdrive on.  I am pretty certain that max and msp both have their own thread, and, if it be, core.  Someone care to correct that?  

Re: about metro~ again