[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

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

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: