[gmpi] Re: lost-n-found #2 latency
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:59:42 -0700
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 03:26:27PM -0600, Mike Berry wrote:
> I happen to think that this is one place where VST works pretty
> well, finding a fair balance between plugin flexibility and host
> complexity. Following VST would mean:
>
> 1.) Plugins must report their latency when the graph is started.
> 2.) Plugins can change the latency they report any time they are asked.
> However, hosts will only ask at times that are convenient. This means
> that for most hosts, dynamic latency correction while the graph is
> running will not happen, but it would be possible to write a host which
> did compensate dynamically.
That sounds fair to me. anyone else have thoughts? I'll add a Latency
section to the reqs stating the above...
> As for the other questions, I think that plugins should always
> assume that events received correspond to the time of the input data, not
> the output. So a parameter change will be heard by the user after the
> latency has passed. I know that you could have some parameters which
> could be applied without latency, such as the output volume of a
> transform-based filter, but this would lead to a perplexed user, and I
> don't want every parameter to have its own latency value.
> This would also cover the DSP card case. If they have audio but not
> control latency, then it is the plugins responsibility to buffer the
> events as necessary.
I agree completely. I think anything but a consistent approach is
problematic, probably. I just want to make sure that the folks who want
to do weird things have a chance to have their say. Last chance on this
one...
Going...
going...
> Mike
>
> Tim Hockin wrote:
> >A few latency related items.
> >
> >Do plugins need to report their latency? Does it need to be dynamic? Can
> >a plugin change it's latency based on some parameter?
> >
> >There was an email discussion on latent plugins hinting that they should
> >receive their events early. Do we want to deal with this?
> >
> >There was a discussion about DSP cards with audio latency, but no
> >control latency. Do we want to deal with this?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >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
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mike Berry
> Adobe Systems
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--
Tim Hockin
thockin@xxxxxxxxxx
Soon anyone who's not on the World Wide Web will qualify for a government
subsidy for the home-pageless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
