[gmpi] Re: 3.9 (draft) use cases and stuff

  • From: "Koen Tanghe" <koen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:38:01 +0100

On Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:06 PM [GMT+1=CET],
Ron Kuper <xxxRonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This is very useful, Tim.

Yes, I agree! I appreciate it that you put your efforts in keeping this
thing organized and rolling! Not having much time to do these things for
myself, it's always nice to see an overview of the challenging thoughts
after some nice discussions  ;-)

> It is possible to do tempo sync without tempo lookahead, just
> as long as every tempo change that occurs within an audio frame is given
> the plugin in time.

> .... other remarks on tempo lookahead ...

Yes, tempo lookahead is not needed (at least for real-time plugins ; offline
plugins might be a different case) as long as you can somehow know if there
is a tempo change for the sample you're processing. In fact, by the
block-based nature of things nowadays, you do have a little tempo-lookahead
(but very jitterish: for the first sample in the block you have a block size
of lookahead, but for the last sample, none at all).

Also remember that plugins that determine the tempo of other plugins, should
be processed first so that the tempo changes are present when the other
plugins start their processing, in order to avoid a minimal delay of 1
processing block. But I guess that's more something for the design or
implementation stage?


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

Other related posts: