[gmpi] Re: Reqs TODO
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:11:01 -0800
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 02:43:51PM +1300, Jeff McClintock wrote:
> Well, there are valid technical reasons for 192kHz. Mainly the freedom to
> use less aggressive reconstruction and anti-aliasing filters in you sampling
> hardware.
And there are valid reasons to do everything at 64 bit - less error. I
personally doubt that 99.999% of people can hear the difference between 192k
and 96k. Ditto for f32 vs f64.
> > because the marketing tells them to. Sooner or later, some host company
> > will claim full 64 bit data paths, and poof, GMPI is suddenly "legacy".
>
> maaayby. I understand what you are saying. But respectfully, don't like it
> (marketing based decisions).
Nor do I, but it's reality.
> Also I feel that GIMPI will be cleanly designed, and will not be difficult
> to convert to 64 bits later anyhow.
Yes, and when it does, we have this same issue. Hosts will either not
support GMPI v1 or they have to support both.
I want simplicity, but I also want to solve problems cleanly. I don't catre
if we just do float32 now. Eventually we will (probably) have to support
float64. We can solve it then.
You just have to convice all the people who want float64 NOW that they
don't need it. Or else we do BOTH and solve it now. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
