Announcement: Max For Live workshop at Ircam.

Learn about building and using Max for Live devices.
hoffman2k
Posts: 14718
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:40 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: Announcement: Max For Live workshop at Ircam.

Post by hoffman2k » Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:36 pm

emmanuel_2 wrote:Let me explain a little bit more. Each MfL device potentially live its life in a different thread than the others, and you don't have any control over it (Live does the threading repartition/optimization). Furthermore, each device use its own scheduler (synched to the Live transport). Using send/receive within the device is totally fine because it will stay in the same thread, but if you use send/receive across devices the timing is just unpredictable. OSC won't do a better job, updreceive has to resynchronize what it received with the scheduler of the device its into.
Thanks Emmanuel.

Is there a suggested method for inter-device communication?
Lets say I have a Max MIDI Effect that has to send a message to a Max Audio Effect to retrigger an LFO for example. Is there a way to get a reliable predictable result?

Cheers

- Bjorn

josquin2000
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:24 pm
Location: Deep in 'it'.

Re: Announcement: Max For Live workshop at Ircam.

Post by josquin2000 » Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:54 pm

Is use of the LiveAPI not an option? A message sent by the python live api is not timing accurate?
I was not suggesting use of UDP or TCP-IP transported data
(real OSC calls): just use of the syntax of the LiveAPI, with it's OSC ready namespace,
and any timing issues *there* are probably minor ones in the Live<->python bridge?
Or do the LiveAPI python calls have the same weakness of having to synchronize to the local device's scheduler?

At least not knowing the
implementation details, that is my guess..any clarification
from those who have signed a non-disclosure, :)?


L&K
J2K

hoffman2k
Posts: 14718
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:40 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: Announcement: Max For Live workshop at Ircam.

Post by hoffman2k » Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:28 pm

josquin2000 wrote:Is use of the LiveAPI not an option? A message sent by the python live api is not timing accurate?
I was not suggesting use of UDP or TCP-IP transported data
(real OSC calls): just use of the syntax of the LiveAPI, with it's OSC ready namespace,
and any timing issues *there* are probably minor ones in the Live<->python bridge?
Or do the LiveAPI python calls have the same weakness of having to synchronize to the local device's scheduler?

At least not knowing the
implementation details, that is my guess..any clarification
from those who have signed a non-disclosure, :)?


L&K
J2K
The API is subject to the same device scheduler I suppose. So no, API calls aren't faster than send/receive. In fact we have to design our patches around the fact these are slower. Especially live.path calls.

Post Reply