Fabio Paolizzo

I'm trying to build a sort of vst matrix in which the vst can be chained dinamically on request. Like: vst~ A --> vst~ B ; or vst~ B --> vst~ A.

gate~1 --> vst~ A, B --> selector~2 --> gate~2 --> vst~ A, B.

The problem is that the vst object stops working when I connect its inlet to the gate~2.

It would be normal if the inlets and outlets would be closed in loop. But instead the vst object gets crazy just connecting it in such a way, and not when I really route them.

I'm trying to build a sort of vst matrix in which the vst can be chained dinamically on request. Like: vst~ A --> vst~ B  ; or vst~ B --> vst~ A.

It would be normal if the inlets and outlets would be closed in loop. But instead the vst object gets crazy just connecting it in such a way, and not when I really route them. 

vst-chain

Just a quick guess, as I don't have time to look at your patch, but 

have you used send~ /receive~ pairs on one end of each loop?

ie vst~ -> gate~ -> send~ X ...... receive X... -> selector~ -> vst~

Why not use matrix~/matrixctl ? It's a much neater way of doing this. 

(You'll still need the send~/receive~ pairs though)

> I'm trying to build a sort of vst matrix in which the vst can be 

> chained dinamically on request. Like: vst~ A --> vst~ B ; or vst~ 

> gate~1 --> vst~ A, B --> selector~2 --> gate~2 --> vst~ A, B.

> The problem is that the vst object stops working when I connect its 

> It would be normal if the inlets and outlets would be closed in 

> loop. But instead the vst object gets crazy just connecting it in 

> such a way, and not when I really route them.

Just a quick guess, as I don't have time to look at your patch, but  
have you used send~ /receive~ pairs on one end of each loop?

ie  vst~ -> gate~ -> send~ X ......  receive X... -> selector~ -> vst~

Why not use matrix~/matrixctl ? It's a much neater way of doing this.  
(You'll still need the send~/receive~ pairs though)

>
> I'm trying to build a sort of vst matrix in which the vst can be  
> chained dinamically on request. Like: vst~ A --> vst~ B  ; or vst~  
> B --> vst~ A.
>
> gate~1 --> vst~ A, B --> selector~2 --> gate~2 --> vst~ A, B.
>
> The problem is that the vst object stops working when I connect its  
> inlet to the gate~2.
>
> It would be normal if the inlets and outlets would be closed in  
> loop. But instead the vst object gets crazy just connecting it in  
> such a way, and not when I really route them.
>
> I need to route them like this:
>


like this ? the loadbanged disable message to matrixctl prevents 

sending the output of a plugin back to itself.

like this ? the loadbanged disable message to matrixctl prevents  
sending the output of a plugin back to itself.

> Why not use matrix~/matrixctl ? It's a much neater way of doing this. 

> (You'll still need the send~/receive~ pairs though)

David Stevens wrote:
> Why not use matrix~/matrixctl ? It's a much neater way of doing this.  
> (You'll still need the send~/receive~ pairs though)

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com


I've been with no internet connection for while...

however I'm going to check that part of the patch...

Indeed I wanted to aviod any send receive to delay the signal by one vector (as I found in the forums).

I've been with no internet connection for while...
however I'm going to check that part of the patch...

> Indeed I wanted to aviod any send receive to delay the signal by one

Don't worry, it will only delay it if there is feedback. Its just a tiny 

bit more heavy on the CPU than s/r (without tilde~).

Fabio wrote:
> Indeed I wanted to aviod any send receive to delay the signal by one
> vector (as I found in the forums).

Don't worry, it will only delay it if there is feedback. Its just a tiny 
bit more heavy on the CPU than s/r (without tilde~).

vst chain