[gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.9. Time - opening arguments

  • From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:00:02 -0800

On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 05:51:12PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> >time?  Also, how do you handle the increasing market for higher sample
> >rates?  192 kHz Music Time?  eeek.  I was thinking more like 96-384 ticks
> >per beat makes sense (tick being an immutable unit of music time).  It works
> >pretty well in music software today.
> 
> 1920 is a better number. it allows integer representation of several other
> beat subdivisions than 384 does. its what ardour uses, anyway.

And 2520 is even better - we've done this - remember? :P

But when I run my Windows music software at a PPQ higher than 96, I quickly
run out of CPU for some workloads, for an arguably insignifcant gain.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: