[gmpi] Re: Topic 6: Time representation

  • From: Mike Berry <mberry@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 17:17:49 -0600



David Olofson wrote:

On Tuesday 13 May 2003 00.26, Mike Berry wrote:


Besides, I don't like compulsory divide instructions hardcoded into the event handling macros. :-)



In theory, I don't like them either. But they are better than any of the other solutions that I've seen. And by going to audio samples as a unit, you are mandating divides for every event I pass to the plugins, so it seems to be manditory on either side.


Anyway, just to be clear again. My world does not end if we choose the audio sample rate as the time quanta. I'd like to leave it open to the host, but I can code to audio samples without significant difficulty.

Though I did just think of another reason why it would be nice. Imagine a case where you have a host who is also a plugin. Now imagine that you nest several of these and each has its own sample rate. As events trickle down through each of the hosts, at each point they are quantized to the local sample rate. By the time they hit the bottom, they will have moved significantly in time. If the host controlled the quanta, you could pass events through unchanged in time.

So yes, I believe that all of the cases for sub-sample quanta are border cases. But all together I think that they do add some value.

--
Mike Berry
Adobe Systems


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