[gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.8 Events - ramped events
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:07:09 -0800
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:49:05PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > going to disregard the ramp (and use it as a point value instead)
> > then the sender may choose to not send a ramp at all, and instead
> > use the more expensive but more accurate series of point values.
> > Without that info, the sender might send a ramp to an unramped
> > control, which would be worse than having no ramps at all.
>
> What says it's the *sender* that should decide what to do?
Because only the sender knows the intent. If a ramp can be used as a
smoothe approximation, it should be. But if the receiver will not actually
ramp, then the best approximation is a series of points.
> I think it's a host thing. Senders should just do their thing, and the
> host should insert suitable converters when needed. If there are to
> be options for output controls (such as ramping on/off), they should
> be optional.
Downside: a chain of plugins, A->B, where A controls B via a ramp, but B
does not ramp; the host converts the ramp to N points. How many points? 1?
100? The same chain of plugins will sound different in different hosts.
I think it is reasonable to say that all real controls must handle ramped
input. But I guess I can live with the "let the host handle it" answer, if
that is what people think.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
