Re: [Jack-Devel] graph simplification using mathematics?

On Sun, July 3, 2016 10:55, Harry van Haaren wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Thomas Brand <[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>> Given that a processing graph doesn't change constantly (except in some
>>  special cases),
>
>
> But parts of the FX chain are often bypassed.
>
>
>
>> i'd imagine to kind of "freeze" the plugins setup to a single instance
>> to gain more room per cycle.
>
>
> Can't freeze everything - because then you can't bypass...
>

"Freeze" would only affect the graph, not the parameters that are still
dynamic.

>
> And FAUST comes with one complication in this area  - there is no "turn
> off" switch. To "bypass" something in FAUST, you compute it anyway, and
> then multiple the output by zero. Although this works, it is not a viable
> solution for complex synths - Sorcer[1] only has 3 wavetables
> because adding more means more CPU per voice.
>

On/Off and Bypass would be parameters. I'm not sure i get the scenario you
describe, but "off" would be a switch at the front that doesn't do
anything with incoming data and does output a fixed zero while "bypass"
would act like a bridge, just feeding input to output (*1 if you like).


> Don't get me wrong - I really like FAUST, and it is extremely powerful
> for certain use cases - but building DAWs or "configurable" audio
> processors is not one. Building DSP blocks that can be used by a DAW or
> configurable audio processors is its strength - and its awesome for that.
>

DAW would be a set of widgets, controls and views  "orchestrating" the
blocks. I know that's too much simplified still not completely crazy to
think about IMHO.

>
> Cheers, -Harry
>
>
> [1] http://openavproductions.com/sorcer/
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> http://www.openavproductions.com
>
>

1467729563.30439_0.ltw:2,a <f17c6fecc8af958d16c462f5d808d9d5.squirrel at ips73 dot ips dot ch>