[gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging

  • From: Mike Berry <mberry@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:27:13 -0600



RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: 


How many hosts use uninterleaved, actually?  I know we don't and SOFO
doesn't (I'm pretty sure).  Steinberg is uninterleaved, obviously.  Of the
apps that are uninterleaved, I wonder how many are this way because they
made a decision early on to support ASIO and/or VST, and these are
uninterleaved?

It seems to me that the decision to be interleaved or not needs to be made
systemwide.  You introduce inefficiencies if you need to mix and match.


One way to tell is whether or not the apps deinterleave stereo files on disk when you open them. Based on this, I believe that ProTools and Digital Performer are uninterleaved internally.

If we allow both, we are just pushing the issue to the plugin writers to support both, since various hosts are going to (most likely) load one or the other, or at least performance is going to take a hit if the plugin is mismatched. This also means that plugins have to support multitudinous multichannel orderings. As a host writer, this doesn't bother me too much since we would probably simply not load plugins that don't take uninterleaved buffers. How do the plugin writers feel about this?


--
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:

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 05-2003