[gmpi] Re: [OT] Re: Topic 7.1: Channel Formats / XML, Profiles

  • From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:14:09 +0100

On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 07:37:34 -0400, Angus F. Hewlett wrote:
> For good usability in the Reaktor/AudioMulch/Bidule/Synthedit paradigm,
> you definitely need multiple ports (aka channel groupings), and because of

Can you expalin why? I use, and write plugins for, this type of
architecture daily and I've never felt the need for enforced channel
grouping. Grouping channels for presentation is another matter, but I
definatly wouldn't want "if you have this channel connected you must also
connect this one" type behaviour.

BTW I've been using port to mean something different, but I think we're
understanding each other.

> the relatively higher plugin counts and graph complexities, but at the
> same time the smaller average size of the plugins, it becomes worthwhile
> to consider optimised buffer formats (aka swizzling). It's a harder
> problem to solve, but one I'd like to think is worth attempting.

Do you have an example of a buffer layout that's more efficient than mono
buffers? The only example weve seen so far is interleaving, which appears
to be less efficient, though no-ones tested it AFAIK. From what I remember
pd, jMax and Max/MSP use mono buffers and they dont seems to have any
efficiency problems.

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

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2003