[gmpi] Re: Topic 7.3: Unconnected inputs/outputs
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:28:56 +0100
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:59:50 -0700, Marc Poirier wrote:
> --- Steve Harris wrote:
> > I have some reservations about how useful this is v's the API and UI
> > complexity required to support it, but I can see the advantages. The
> > equivalent of your multiple delay lines example is typically handled in
> > LADSPA systems by instantiating multiple plugins with the same control
> > parameters (LADSPA allows you to share them between plugins).
> >
> > This does not allow you to share LFOs (for e.g.) of course.
>
> Yes, among other serious problems. For example, if any attributes of your
> DSP are randomizable and there is expected to be a consistency accross
> channels in the results, then that will break with the multiple-instances
> approach. Almost all of my effects do this sort of thing in some respect,
> so if this were to be the solution adopted in GMPI, then I for one would
> not be able to port most of my effects to GMPI, and I'm sure I'm not the
> only one...
Hmm... the randomise example is not a problem, because the plugins have to
share a common seed anyway, otherwise the state will be different if you
do save, load, save, which is bad.
How do you support this behavious in plugins systems other than AU?
- 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:
