Print

Print


I looked at the differeces between the current and proposed systems and 
they are identical (almost).  If you (all) are happy I will commit this 
version.

i suspect I might be able to do more but time is pressing (I have an idea 
for a few more % but I need headspace for the mathematics and we need a 
new release)

So should I commit this?

==John ff
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016, Anton Kholomiov wrote:

> 
> Thank you for updates John!
> 
> I’ve tried the new version of the moogladder on my test it shows approximately
> 2 times speed up:
> 
> I’ve tried the moogladder on chord progression of pad sound. The single note
> contains two instances of the filter. The heaviest load is the final chord: 8
> notes at the same time. So we get 16 of moogladders going on.
> 
> My results:
> 
> ;moogladder 
> ; final chord:  8 notes * 2 filters = 16 moogladders at the same time
> 
> ; 62% -- no-opt     (final chord)
> ; 44%               (first chord)
> 
> ; 24% -- new        (final chord) 
> ; 20% -- new        (first chord)
> 
> Complete report of top | grep csound:
> 
> moogladder no-opt
> 
> CPU   Mem  Time
> 
> 39,5  0,3   0:01.41 csound 
> 44,8  0,3   0:02.76 csound 
> 37,5  0,3   0:03.89 csound 
> 38,8  0,3   0:05.06 csound 
> 43,8  0,3   0:06.38 csound 
> 26,5  0,3   0:07.18 csound 
> 43,5  0,3   0:08.49 csound 
> 32,9  0,3   0:09.48 csound 
> 62,7  0,3   0:11.37 csound 
> 18,3  0,3   0:11.92 csound
> 
> moogladder new
> 
> 11,3  0,3   0:00.34 csound-mg 
> 20,9  0,3   0:00.97 csound-mg 
> 13,9  0,3   0:01.39 csound-mg 
> 16,3  0,3   0:01.88 csound-mg 
> 16,3  0,3   0:02.37 csound-mg 
> 14,3  0,3   0:02.80 csound-mg 
> 16,3  0,3   0:03.29 csound-mg 
> 14,6  0,3   0:03.73 csound-mg 
> 24,2  0,3   0:04.46 csound-mg 
> 19,6  0,3   0:05.05 csound-mg
>  8,3  0,3   0:05.30 csound-mg
> 
> Links to rendered files so you can listen to how it sounds:
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/cki05znt029ta8j/moogladder-sounds.zip?dl=0
> 
> I’ve attached the file is so you can reproduce the tests.
> 
> 
> ​2016-03-30 20:23 GMT+03:00 Paul Batchelor <[log in to unmask]>:
>       I would love to see the code for it.
> -P
> 
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:30 AM, jpff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>       Really a -dev topic but as there was discussion of
>       moogladder here
>       recently.....
>
>       I have a version of moogladder that is much faster (manual
>       example in
>       0.48s as against 1.8s).  No tables but avoids tanh calls for
>       small and
>       large absolute arguments, as tanh is approx the same a x for
>       |x|<0.5
>       and for |x|>4 it is sign(x).
>       comparing results for that test shows audio is the same.
>
>       Anyone wish to try?  Not yet committed to git
>       ==John ffitch
>
>       Csound mailing list
>       [log in to unmask]
>       https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>       Send bugs reports to
>               https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>       Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> 
> 
> Csound mailing list [log in to unmask]
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features
> can be posted here
> 
> 
> Csound mailing list [log in to unmask]
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can
> be posted here
>

Csound mailing list
[log in to unmask]
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here