[gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.8
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:30:54 +0000
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:27:09AM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> > and about double: steve (and others) have already provided a fairly
> > solid explanation of why specifying the data type used to move data
> > *between* plugins has no particular constraints on what data type is
>
> You know it, and I know it, and probably most plug developers know it. But
> welcome to REALITY. The market is driven by marketing and buzzwords. I'll
> bet dollars to dimes that it WILL become industry standard.
That kind of marketing bulletpoint stuff has /nothing/ to do with the
technology - I've seen "64bit" VST plugins advertised, and there in
the 32bit transport world too. Its no big deal.
If 64bit transport becomes common it will be just becuase it is faster or
easier to a significant extent. That may happen before the GMPI 1.0 spec
comes out, or it may not - but any processing speed advantage would most
likly be wiped out by the time band bandwidth the host spent translating
between the float and double plugins.
- 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:
