[gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging
- From: David Olofson <david@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:19:17 +0200
On Tuesday 03 June 2003 13.40, Vincent Burel wrote:
[...]
> > But they *do* have the time to figure out mathematical shortcuts
> > and hack one or more platform specific SIMD versions of the DSP
> > code... Weird how some optimizations are suddently not of any
> > interest.
>
> simply because ZERO signal is typically not a special case for
> audioprocessing optimization . And this idea has not been given by
> a signalprocessing expert , sorry .
Well, what do I know - but it seems like 0 is a bit "special" in that
it's about the only input that nearly always, sooner or later,
results in 0 output. Maybe my world view is too simplified for the
modern musician, though.
> > So is any form of optimization - unless you have to sell your
> > product *today*, rather than next year. Still, it's your choice.
> > If you can't be bothered to spend time saving cycles, then don't.
>
> the audio software industry is a grocerie, with small money, small
> resources and small amount of intelligent people (but big amount of
> "ass" like me
> :-)). If we go now into solution which will mean , more work, more
> resources, more analyze, more problem to solve,
> this will be a desaster (even if it's difficult to do something
> more catastrophic than today :-))).
I'm quite sure it's always possible to make things a little worse! :-)
> We have many important point to
> solve : - simplicitiy of the SDK
> - multichannel plug-in management.
> - good handling of automation, MIDI and so on.
> and finally we are talking during weeks about unnecessary details
> and options... again ridiculous :-)
Well, you have a point. If we can conclude that *if* it turns out to
make sense, we can add this without messing up the API, we can bring
it up later, when we have more and better structured data to base our
decision on.
> > > > Yes, I measured it. I spent weeks profiling with VTune,
> > > > seeing hotspots in
> > > > memset, and optimizing. As I said in my previous email, this
> > > > approach made
> > > > a DRAMATIC improvement in performance in our audio engine.
> > >
> > > statistically speaking you get a Dramatic improvement if more
> > > than 75% of your audio montage contains silences. I'm sorry but
> > > i'm not sure it's a usual case .
> >
> > Where are your statistics, and what is it based on? Seriously,
> > I'd like to have an idea of how things look in other people's
> > audio sequencers and HDRs. I know how *I* do stuff, and I could
> > make some calculations based on that, but it depends a whole lot
> > on genre and the way you're working, I think.
>
> you finally fall down in a trap ! :-) when Ron don't give numbers ,
> you believe it, when i give number you ask where they go from ! :-)
Actually, I don't trust anyone about anything! ;-)
> If Ron Measure something regarding optimization due to IsZero flag
> why doesn't he give the result :
> for exemple : "on a average montage 24 tracks , 150 clips, we have
> inserted 24 EQ+Compressor on console and other 40 special Fx on
> some clips. With the "IsZero" opimization we have been able to
> insert 10 other plug-ins without getting trouble. But we finnally
> get trouble after moving 20 clips on the timeline". So Why Ron does
> not said it !? just because he didn't measure something in real
> situation.
Well, I don't think Ron is hiding anything. Either way, I'm asking for
more detailed information.
> you question is not for me , it's for Ron.
No, the question is for *everyone* who has any real life experience
(ie with real sessions and real plugins) with this.
> > > upto now, i never got problem with speed or optimization :-)
> > > you should take a look on my product Ron... you will feel that
> > > the silence magic flag is already set ! :-))))
> >
> > Well, then you won't need to use this feature anyway, so what's
> > the problem? ;-)
>
> Bad thinking :-) if an "ass" like me, does not need it , why the
> others genius like you would need it !? :-))
Well, if you can prove that there's no point in having plugins disable
their DSP code when nothing audible can be done, I'll by that *no
one* needs that feature. From what I've seen so far, it doesn't seem
that simple, though.
Either way, no one will ever use Audiality in a game if all loaded
songs, jingles and sound effects have to have their FX plugins
running all the time. However insignificant this engine, my DSP
knowledge or general programming experience may be, I didn't
implement silence in the modular mixer on a whim. It serves a real
purpose, and it was the only alternative I could think of that can do
the job well and without punishing users on a daily basis.
//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:
