[gmpi] Re: Time Summary (was *Ping*)
- From: RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:57:28 -0400
>>>
Also, with all this talk of latency response - does it even matter?
Bearing in mind that GMPI is a design for the future, do major realtime
host vendors (Ron? Frederick?) see a need for users to be running buffers
greater than the 3-6ms range in 2-4 years' time, given the developments
in OSes and system performance?
<<<
I think in 2-4 years there will still be customers who deliberately increase
their audio latency to lessen CPU overhead, especially in cases where they
have many tracks and effects and are "merely" mixing (not playing live). 20
msec latency is unacceptable for live soft-synth usage, but for many users
its OK for mixing.
Also, philosophically, binding events into the process() method feels to me
like treating them as second class objects. Imagine a GMPI plugin that was
a pure music event (MIDI) processor. Such a plugin wouldn't need an audio
buffer process() routine, and could/should operate simply with some clocks
and the ability to route messages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: