I would guess it's about the same either way, but perhaps re-using a table is a little faster since the memory does not need to be allocated.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
>From: David Worrall 
>Sent: Dec 11, 2007 6:10 AM
>To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: dynamic wavetables, was: phase shaping
>
>I have an (I think) related question:
>I one wants to change the waveform of a wavetable preceding the  
>synthesis of every note, is it more efficient to write new values  
>into an existing table or (re-)define another table?
>
>David
>
>On 11/12/2007, at 8:02 PM, Oeyvind Brandtsegg wrote:
>
>> Good.
>>
>> But one more question about rewriting tables,
>> why is writing so much more expensive (in terms of CPU usage) than  
>> reading ?
>> best
>> Oeyvind
>>
>>
>> 2007/12/11, Anthony Kozar : If you are  
>> going to use Chebyshev polynomials (or even non-Chebyshev
>> polynomials) then I would guess it will be more efficient to use  
>> the new
>> opcode chebyshevpoly (or polynomial) that is now in CVS.   
>> Calculating an
>> entire table every k-pass will compute a lot of unused values.
>>
>> I have gotten very smooth results in my tests of chebyshevpoly so  
>> far (once
>> I realized that a k-rate de-clicking envelope was introducing
>> discontinuities).  The new opcode powershape is also quite nice for  
>> variable
>> x^y waveshaping/distortion.
>>
>> Anthony Kozar
>> anthonykozar AT sbcglobal DOT net
>> http://anthonykozar.net/
>> ...
>
>
>
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"