[gmpi] Re: Topic 7.2: In-place processing
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:47:46 +0100
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 11:11:28 +0200, David Olofson wrote:
> Yes, but if that's a major concern, just tell the host not to do
> silence at all. (Config option for any serious RT host.) The host
> hardwires all SILENT controls (or whatever we use) to "not silent",
> and all plugins will run full on all the time. No optimisations and
> no surprises.
That's a good point. Leaving it up to the host allows it to engage it for
offline processing and if you have lots of softsynths for eg., which have
unpredictable load anyway.
> > I like the idea of beng able to magically silence output bufers
> > using host support (as I said before), but I think that silcence
> > detection on input should be optional if its available at all.
> > Something akin to what we had for connected-ness would be
> > aceptable: buffer esists, its full of -200dB noise, theres a flag
> > set somewhere that you can read if you like that sort of thing.
>
> Yes, it should definitely be optional, and I like the "there's always
> a buffer" approach in this case too. If you don't care, you *really*
> don't have to care at all; just process your audio.
Yes, agreed. I'm firmly against anything that will force me to have more
than 1 inner loop, where 1 would have been enough in a VST/LADSPA type
system.
- Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
