[gmpi] Re: ramps vs audio-rate controls

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:17:43 -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> Pros:
>       Same end result as ramps
>       More flexible than ramps
>       No issues with long-running ramps beyond a buffer
> 
> Cons:
>       Memory bandwidth
>       Host needs to enable hooking up point-value controls to audio-rate
>         controls

Not neccesarily. That only matters if the host allows plugin->plugin
control chains. Not all will. Event to CV conversion is easy, CV to event
is much harder and adds latency.

Other cons:
        If the host is responsible for drawing the UI then it makes
          generation the control data much harder (host needs to worry
          about things like buffer boundaries). Unless were assuming that
          the control data will be unsmoothed?
        Makes native UI control over IPC (which a lot of people think is
          desirable) tricky. It would need some kind of (optional)
          intermediate (and probably event like) representation to make it
          practical.

NB all it needs is a hint on some (otherwise normal) audio input that its
   to be used for control purposes (and it needs the control hints, if any),
   please dont make audio input and audio rate control fundamentally
   different.

Other systems that have PCM control signals define a k-rate that can be
less than the audio rate. I dont know if its neccesary, but its something
to think about.

- Steve

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: http://www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts: