pdelges

I recently replaced my 64 [biquad~] instances in the patch I'm working 

on by [smooth-biquad~]s. Under some conditions (in that particular 

case, stopping a [groove~] or a [sfplay~], which is the only sound 

source in the patch), the CPU usage starts to raise up to 100%. This 

doesn't happen with the regular [biquad~] object. Turning the DSP off 

and on puts MSP back to a normal state, as does a "clear" to all 

instances. Most of the [smooth-biquad~] are in muted voices of 

I know I'm vague but I couldn't reproduce this on small patches. Could 

it be related to this denorm bug on intel? I can't test on a PowerPC 

Centre de Recherches et de Formation Musicales de Wallonie asbl

I recently replaced my 64 [biquad~] instances in the patch I'm working  
on by [smooth-biquad~]s. Under some conditions (in that particular  
case, stopping a [groove~] or a [sfplay~], which is the only sound  
source in the patch), the CPU usage starts to raise up to 100%. This  
doesn't happen with the regular [biquad~] object. Turning the DSP off  
and on puts MSP back to a normal state, as does a "clear" to all  
instances. Most of the [smooth-biquad~] are in muted voices of  
[poly~]...
I know I'm vague but I couldn't reproduce this on small patches. Could  
it be related to this denorm bug on intel? I can't test on a PowerPC  
now, but will as soon as I can.

_____________________________
Patrick Delges

Centre de Recherches et de Formation Musicales de Wallonie asbl
http://www.crfmw.be/max


smooth-biquad-cpu-consuming

I have found that I have to mute poly~ voices with a load bang. They 

On May 8, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Patrick Delges wrote:

> I recently replaced my 64 [biquad~] instances in the patch I'm 

> working on by [smooth-biquad~]s. Under some conditions (in that 

> particular case, stopping a [groove~] or a [sfplay~], which is the 

> only sound source in the patch), the CPU usage starts to raise up 

> to 100%. This doesn't happen with the regular [biquad~] object. 

> Turning the DSP off and on puts MSP back to a normal state, as does 

> a "clear" to all instances. Most of the [smooth-biquad~] are in 

> I know I'm vague but I couldn't reproduce this on small patches. 

> Could it be related to this denorm bug on intel? I can't test on a 

> PowerPC now, but will as soon as I can.

> Centre de Recherches et de Formation Musicales de Wallonie asbl

I have found that I have to mute poly~ voices with a load bang.  They  
don't seem to be born muted.

Cheers
Gary Lee Nelson
TIMARA Department
Oberlin College
www.timara.oberlin.edu/GaryLeeNelson

> Hi (and especialy hi to cnmat),
>
> I recently replaced my 64 [biquad~] instances in the patch I'm  
> working on by [smooth-biquad~]s. Under some conditions (in that  
> particular case, stopping a [groove~] or a [sfplay~], which is the  
> only sound source in the patch), the CPU usage starts to raise up  
> to 100%. This doesn't happen with the regular [biquad~] object.  
> Turning the DSP off and on puts MSP back to a normal state, as does  
> a "clear" to all instances. Most of the [smooth-biquad~] are in  
> muted voices of [poly~]...
> I know I'm vague but I couldn't reproduce this on small patches.  
> Could it be related to this denorm bug on intel? I can't test on a  
> PowerPC now, but will as soon as I can.
>
> _____________________________
> Patrick Delges
>
> Centre de Recherches et de Formation Musicales de Wallonie asbl
> http://www.crfmw.be/max
>


I had a chance to test my patch on a G5 (OSX.4.11), and there is no 

problem on it. So it seems to be related to intel (core 2 duo, X.5.2, 

On 8 mai 08, at 16:31, Patrick Delges wrote:

> only sound source in the patch), the CPU usage starts to raise up to 

> 100%. This doesn't happen with the regular [biquad~] object. Turning 

> the DSP off and on puts MSP back to a normal state, as does a 

> "clear" to all instances. Most of the [smooth-biquad~] are in muted 

I had a chance to test my patch on a G5 (OSX.4.11), and there is no  
problem on it. So it seems to be related to intel (core 2 duo, X.5.2,  
Max 4 and Max5).

> Hi (and especialy hi to cnmat),
>
> I recently replaced my 64 [biquad~] instances in the patch I'm  
> working on by [smooth-biquad~]s. Under some conditions (in that  
> particular case, stopping a [groove~] or a [sfplay~], which is the  
> only sound source in the patch), the CPU usage starts to raise up to  
> 100%. This doesn't happen with the regular [biquad~] object. Turning  
> the DSP off and on puts MSP back to a normal state, as does a  
> "clear" to all instances. Most of the [smooth-biquad~] are in muted  
> voices of [poly~]...
> I know I'm vague but I couldn't reproduce this on small patches.  
> Could it be related to this denorm bug on intel? I can't test on a  
> PowerPC now, but will as soon as I can.

[smooth-biquad~] CPU consuming