On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 03:26:27PM -0600, Mike Berry wrote: > I happen to think that this is one place where VST works pretty > well, finding a fair balance between plugin flexibility and host > complexity. Following VST would mean: > > 1.) Plugins must report their latency when the graph is started. > 2.) Plugins can change the latency they report any time they are asked. > However, hosts will only ask at times that are convenient. This means > that for most hosts, dynamic latency correction while the graph is > running will not happen, but it would be possible to write a host which > did compensate dynamically. That sounds fair to me. anyone else have thoughts? I'll add a Latency section to the reqs stating the above... > As for the other questions, I think that plugins should always > assume that events received correspond to the time of the input data, not > the output. So a parameter change will be heard by the user after the > latency has passed. I know that you could have some parameters which > could be applied without latency, such as the output volume of a > transform-based filter, but this would lead to a perplexed user, and I > don't want every parameter to have its own latency value. > This would also cover the DSP card case. If they have audio but not > control latency, then it is the plugins responsibility to buffer the > events as necessary. I agree completely. I think anything but a consistent approach is problematic, probably. I just want to make sure that the folks who want to do weird things have a chance to have their say. Last chance on this one... Going... going... > Mike > > Tim Hockin wrote: > >A few latency related items. > > > >Do plugins need to report their latency? Does it need to be dynamic? Can > >a plugin change it's latency based on some parameter? > > > >There was an email discussion on latent plugins hinting that they should > >receive their events early. Do we want to deal with this? > > > >There was a discussion about DSP cards with audio latency, but no > >control latency. Do we want to deal with this? > > > > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list > >Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the > >following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own > >words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not > >redistribute anyone else's words without their permission. > > > >Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi > >Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe > > > > > > -- > Mike Berry > Adobe Systems > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list > Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the > following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own > words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not > redistribute anyone else's words without their permission. > > Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi > Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe -- Tim Hockin thockin@xxxxxxxxxx Soon anyone who's not on the World Wide Web will qualify for a government subsidy for the home-pageless. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not redistribute anyone else's words without their permission. Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe