[gmpi] Re: Topic 7.1: Channel Formats

  • From: RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:36:28 -0400

> I think sources and sincs do not belong here.

A software synth is a source.  They belong here.  If you allow a synth
source, it's not too far a reach to imagine a data source, or a data sink.
I would think if we're building a framework with a graph topology, it would
useful for the edges of the graph to be representable in the same framework.
(I'm pretty sure we covered this point way back in topic 1.)

> Benchmarks and existing software indicate otherwise. Feel free to prove me
wrong.

I can't offer any proof as to why it may be desireable to allow double
precision streams.  Just some hunches:

Suppose you are mastering to 24-bit.  24-bits is all you get for mantissa in
a float.  If you want to do processing such as noise shaping on a float,
combined with effects, don't you need more than 24 bits of dynamic range,
ie, more than 24 bits of mantissa?

- OR -

1 year after GMPI 1.0 comes out, some vendor with proprietary interests
announces and hypes double-precision floating point processing.  It becomes
the flavor of the month... but only in plugin format XYZ != GMPI.  This
means the marketplace, in the hearts and minds of customers, GMPI looks
deficient.

The double precision thing isn't a far reach.  I've already seen a few
plugin vendors talking about how they use doubles in their processing.

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