Yeah, Mind meld mixers have had this feature since they came out. I usually just do the efficient thing so that the 99% who want non-audio rate modulation can have efficiency. I’ve never heard people asking for more, but I agree a choice is cool. to me if you aren’t going to offer a choice, updating modulation at audio rate gives bad performance for everyone while allowing a very small number of people to have audio rate modulation. In other words, I believe that if you are only going to offer one option, full rate is not the right one.
You’re actually probably correct in this case too, as I’ve generally noticed audio rate mod tends to not work well with the pink trombone anyway. I more so had it because I don’t want there to be clicks between values as the in-between values of even slower modulation get lost - though just thinking about the math of that, it shouldn’t matter? I might try a build with it being /2 and /4 processing and see if it helps, though I also don’t want the load to spike every nth sample, so I’m not totally sure the best way to go about that?
It’s much better to “spike” every 4 samples than to consume that much every cycle. It’s a lot different than having an enormous spike every 1024 samples.
heh, heh - don’t take my word for it, but I think it’s true. One test I usually do is measure the CPU, then patch every single input it a white noise generator and see how bad it gets. To me, 2X is pretty good. I hear a lot of reports of “if I patch a bunch of modulation then my performance goes to hell”, but I don’t think that’s a great thing.
However others have told me that performance doesn’t matter to most ppl. don’t know.
I would put it this way: Performance matters to everyone. What is not evenly distributed is the time and circumstance at which someone realizes that it does. But sooner or later the hens come home to roost, for everyone, just a matter of time. Every time someone says “my computer is slow/hot/noisy”, what they’re really saying is: “I care about performance”
I may be one the guilty parties who said at least a version of this, but what I meant was that it seems to me that most people only care about performance to the extent they can hear the effects of poor performance, but not in an abstract way. The difficulty is in helping users to connect the dots between poor performance (including aliasing) and what is perceivable.
True enough. But people won’t get that education in VCV. Over here it’s quite common for ppl to post issues that are performance related. But bar one user I don’t think I have ever once heard someone mention that the main culprit tends to be non-performant modules.
maybe you already thought of this and implemented it, but if you’re concerned about modulation “snapping” with a low rate of sampling, couldn’t you just do at least some naive linear interpolation?
yeah it works, nice job. i was wondering if the clicking sound when modulating tip and blade is an inevitable result of the model, or an artifact, but that’s not a big deal. self-patching the output into the fm input leads to some funny noises.
Seems to be working well for me under Windows 11. I have 3 instances of the PT which I am controlling the pitch for each with a sequencer. Getting some 2001’s soundtrack suspenseful choir sounds. I’m modulating the vibrato on each with a LFO. I’ll have to record soon.
I’m getting the vibe that running multiple instances is going to be quite popular, as I’ve found myself doing it too. I’d like to make it polyphonic, but adapting the code would be a fair amount of work- more than I have time to do or will have time for a fair while. So, if a dev wants to submit a PR, it’d be VERY welcome
