[gmpi] Re: Topic 7.1: Channel Formats
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
> by supporting multiple encodings, we massively increase the complexity
> involved in using plugins together. hosts no longer have to just count
> channels in and out, but are required to track encoding-handling
> capabilities, splice in converters where necessary, etc.
Yes, though it isn't really that complicated, I suspect. Assuming we're
forced to join an N-channel out to an N-channel in and an M-channel out to
an M-channel in, we've already got the pairing issue. Extending it to
encodings (while I personally see it as useless) is trivial. The people who
want this REALLY want this. Personally, it seems to me to be a lot saner to
decode-process-encode - less room for screwups. But I'm not a sound effects
editor.
> i think understand the questions about "illegal operations on an LtRt
> stream". i could use a real life example of these, because its very
> hard for me to see the problems.
Chris gave a good example - if I do things to the phase of those two
signals, my output could well be screwed. However, if I did stuff to the
phase of the 4 component signals, then re-encoded it, it would be ok.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
