[nama] Re: Should track caching cache/uncache fades, too?
- From: "S. Massy" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Joel Roth <joelz@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 20:46:57 -0400
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 12:31:47PM -1000, Joel Roth wrote:
> Hi Fading Namites!
>
> If so, effect chains will need to accommodate fades.
>
> It would certainly be easier to do the opposite:
> to *disable* fades during caching, and re-enable
> them afterwards.
>
> It's not necessary to cache fades in terms of CPU, as
> envelopes aren't very expensive.
>
> One might conceivably want to cache fades for permanence.
>
> As things stand, if a fade is on a cached track, its
> effect will be duplicated, as the new WAV file will
> already contain the fade.
>
> I'm leaning towards *not* caching fades.
Don't have much of a strong feeling either way, though my hunch is that
*not* caching fades would be the most intuitive.
Cheers,
S.M.
Other related posts:
