2 Jul
2016
2 Jul
'16
5:47 p.m.
On Sun, July 3, 2016 00:44, Stéphane Letz wrote:
Yes indeed : a starting point here : Sarah Denoux,
Yann Orlarey,
Stéphane Letz, Dominique Fober, CALCUL DâUNE EXPRESSION FAUST
ÃQUIVALENTE Ã PARTIR DâUN GRAPHE DâAPPLICATIONS
http://jim2016.gmea.net/actes
(although in french)
And in function here : http://faust.grame.fr/faustplayground/ when you
export the final equivalent patch.
Stéphane
very interesting, thanks for the pointers
Le 3 juil. 2016 Ã 00:20, Thomas Brand
<tom(a)trellis.ch> a écrit :
On Sat, July 2, 2016 23:14, Stéphane Letz wrote:
Faust : http://faust.grame.fr
Faust was the first thing that came to mind indeed. The introduction
paragraphs in the documentation says
-specification language
-describe signal processors from a mathematical point of view
-free from implementation details
But right after that:
-FAUST programs are fully compiled, not interpreted.
I can imagine to bundle FAUST code from different processors
semi-automatically or handcrafted to one unit relatively easily. However
i was thinking in a direction where the units live in a host still as
single units, to be connected in different ways, and the host would
dynamically derive a single math operation of the current graph. I
understand this would include recompilation or some kind of JIT
compilation in order to work. If possible at all, i think Faust would
currently be the best fit, since it already offers some of the
fundamental concepts needed to even think about doing something like
this. That would allow large graphs with almost no context switches
(this is pure speculation).
Greetings
Tom
> Le 2 juil. 2016 à 22:58, Thomas Brand <tom(a)trellis.ch> a écrit
> :
>
>
> Hi,
> i wondered if the following scenario could work. Assuming DSP is
> basically maths, and the formula and variables for every plugin
> would be known, would it then be possible to magically simplify all
> formulas of all plugins to one single formula doing all in one step?
> Does this sound
> weird? Greetings Tom
>