[gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- From: Mike Berry <mberry@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:37:59 -0700
Crudesoft wrote:
Defining controls as generators and treating them that
way allows you to modulate anything from any source
without introducing a new class of plugins (event
generators). Today, this is simply impossible. The
built-in LFO of your favorite sampler only does sines
or won't go high enough? Roll your own or use some
other synth for it. Your synth's ADSR doesn't provide
a chaotic attack? Roll your own. Etc.. If you've ever
played with modular hardware synths then you know that
you can create very exciting sounds through
modulation, especially "high" frequency modulation of
unexpected parameters from unexpected sources.
Furthermore, you could use only the modules you really
need instead of firing up a shitload of plugins that
all can do chorus. You might even gain some processing
power that way.
I'm not sure that I fully grasp your objections to events. As currently
described in the requirements, you would be able to create an event
stream which wqas regularly sampled if you wished. You should be able to
do the arbitrary control connection (if the types match) that you
describe (if it is a capability of the host). In essences, events are
nothing but a variably-sampled control rate signal.
So the only objection that I can come up with is that events are a bit
more complicated for the reciever, because of the variable sample rate.
I happen to think that this is a reasonable tradeoff for the added
benefits of events.
So I am a little baffled by your insistence on the wider creative scope
afforded by a fixed control rate. Is it because you could hook up
control signals to audio inputs and treat them as audio? This is
powerful, I agree, but you could also write a simple event->audio plugin
which did this conversion for you. So I would ask that you look at a bit
of the history of the work that we have done before you dismiss us as
too conservative and not interested in creating a flexible system. For
instance, Michael Goggins, who has a long history of work on CSound
(which uses fixed rate controls, BTW), has participated actively in this
group since the beginning.
--
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
Other related posts:
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10
- » [gmpi] Re: GMPI reqs draft 1 (part 2) for review, paragraph 4.10