[gmpi] Re: Topic 6: Time representation
- From: David Olofson <david@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 01:29:52 +0200
On Tuesday 13 May 2003 01.11, Tim Hockin wrote:
> > Actually, can anyone explain why we *really* need 64 bits,
> > provided we stick to the idea that events are only about the
> > current buffer?
>
> I asked that early on, and several people chimed in that they saw
> no reason NOT to. I see a reason - 32 bit CPUs are bad at 64 bit
> math. If wrapping is handled cleanly, it's not a problem.
Right.
> If we go to host-defined sub-samples, though, 32 bits becomes a
> much shorter period of time, suddenly.
Yeah. If someone decides there should be as many fraction bits as you
have mantissa bits in the audio samples, we're looking at a real
buffer size restriction. *heh*
> I think that 64 bits came
> mostly from the idea that Mike would have 10227382637 quanta per
> sample or something astronomical like that ;)
One might conclude that it's a good idea to use 64 bits unless the
quanta or decimal point position is hardcoded.
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. |
| RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. |
`-----------------------------------> http://audiality.org -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
