[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: