[gmpi] Re: Topic 6: Time representation
- From: "Angus F. Hewlett" <amulet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:20:40 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 12 May 2003 RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Did we reach any consensus about the units and precision of ABSTIME? It
> seems we haven't yet agreed on integer vs. fixed point vs. floating point,
> and sample accurate vs. sub-sample accurate.
I feel that it has to be 64-bit integer. Sub-sample accuracy (or rather, a
GMPI-defined [nanoseconds] or host-defined [= extra complexity] quantum)
would be good but I think we can live without.
> I think we agreed that all time stamps would be ABSTIME, with MUSTIME
> conversions handled by a host API.
I would still prefer to see these conversions handled in a GMPI services
layer, probably as part of the plug, than in the host.
> (Assuming GMPI has a VST-like processing
> model), events within a processing frame will have relative ABSTIME
> timestamps from the start of the audio buffer.
What was the argument for relative vs. absolute?
> It was proposed also that plugins would ask for a preferred time format.
> This seems to get some limited traction in the group. Is this what we all
> want?
I don't think it's needed for absolute time, but an extensible and
possibly negotiable format for musical position syncpulses would be good.
Regards,
Angus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
