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

  • From: Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 18:26:38 -0500

>> 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

  ... forgot you were in on that process. and it reminds me to 
      switch to 2520 before a 1.0 release of Ardour :)

>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.

thats because your Windows music software is written
incorrectly. there is no reason why increasing ticks-per-beat needs to
cause any change in CPU utilitization. only if the user chooses to
sequence a large number of events at very closely spaced time
intervals should it affect CPU load.

<paul dons bullet-proof vest>

--p

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