[gmpi] Re: Topic 6: Time representation
- From: "Vincent Burel" <vincent.burel@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 00:09:33 +0200
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Berry" <mberry@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 10:28 PM
Subject: [gmpi] Re: Topic 6: Time representation
>
>
> Vincent Burel wrote:
> >>I simply don't get this line of reasoning. GMPI plugins aren't *only*
> >>supposed to be used as soft synths for live performances, are they?
> >
> >
> > it's maybe a point to clarify, because i don't understand how to merge
two
> > kind of event management on the same plug-in architecture. Or we work as
> > closed as the real time with the smallest possible buffer , or we work
with
> > timestamped event and big buffer...
> >
>
> I guess I just don't see what your issue is here. If you want to write
> a host which timestamps all events as being at the beginning of the
> buffer, that fine with GMPI. If you want to write a host which
> subdivides the buffer, perhaps because you allow the user to set time
> positions in a graphical, non-real-time way, then you can do that with
> GMPI too. Where is the giant complication by using timestamps?
-1- to timestamp an event , you need a time. So (ecxept if the host itself
is managing the sequence) where to get a precise time related to audio
stream on PC when using large buffer ?
-2- to timestamp events precisely, all the Real Time event will have to be
in a higher priority than the audio stream. This is simply not reliable
under Windows at least.
-3- The plug-in will have basically 2 signal to process, the audio of course
, and the event file related to the audio buffer. This brings more
complicated process and it's bad for optimization.
>Are you
> happy with how VST deals with this issue, which is what you are
> advocating? I know of few people who are happy with this, including
> Steinberg who has promised timestamping in VST 3.
Well, i'm doing also VST plug-in , but it's more historically than whatever.
i've nearly no client under Cubase (except for freeware of course :-) but
more on Logic PC. I hope it will change with the new Pinnacle company, but
i've no illusion.
Just read this small story, to introduce you what is really my main problem
:
Once upon a time, one of my client tried Cubase, check the input gain of the
AD converter on the VST mixer, and run a 8 tracks recording. Great ! it was
working. After he played the 8 tracks ! and there was crack in the sound. So
i put Cubase on a measure banc. And begin to test the Peak Meters of the
virtual mixer. they forgot to consider the negative part of the sound so the
level were simply wrong ! Again an audio company which does not know what
is an oscilloscope ! :-))) (there is a smiley but it s not funny, also it
seems that they did the same mystake in Cubase SX) So my client put the
software in the trash and bought something else, and of course didn't buy me
VST plug-ins...
Well, i'm a professional, i work with professionals (nearly exclusively).
And before saying "Creativity first" i say :
-1- The host has to be stable (otherwise people does not buy plug-in, they
just wait for the update of their crapy host)
-2- The plug-in architecture has to be simple and reliable, because if it
takes me 1 month to port a plug-in, then i lose money.
-3- The both host and plug-in has to work perfectly together otherwise i get
client on the phone and i lose time.
So , that i see with the timestamp concept , which is absolutely not
according to the audiostation evolution (smaller and smaller buffer), and
which is a technologie nearly impossible for the host to manage in real time
under Windows like O/S. Sounds again like a programmer bulshit to help a
little bit more the ridiculous Native Audio Groceries to still fall down
into the hole.
i thought that GMPI was here to solve my problem of production, my problem
of reliability , and in a way, some problem related to the host exotic
programming way. I didn't think that GMPI would be again another step in the
programming non-sens and would bring me again more problem to solve and more
work to do , and i'm sure less money back.
Franckly, i'm not sure anymore that i can be usefull in this newsgroup. i
doubt that we have the same goal.
just an example : the GMPI group did start directly to design a new
architecture of plug-in . without asking before what are the current problem
in plug-in production, in plug-in management, in plug-in hosting. So which
problem we are going to solve in fact ? Again a typical programmer behavior
: bring a solution without having a list of problems to solve.
Vincent Burel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
