2008/6/3 Arnold Krille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Am Montag, 2. Juni 2008 schrieb Stefano D'Angelo: >> 2008/6/2 Arnold Krille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > Am Montag, 2. Juni 2008 schrieb Wolfgang Woehl: >> >> Arnold Krille: >> >> > And why is time-stretching limited to non-realtime audio? >> >> >> >> Aaannnddd wwwhhhyyy iiisss tttiiimmmeee---ssstttrrrettch <meep> >> >> sorry, time's up. >> > >> > Well, try syncing two devices that don't share a world-clock and you >> > will "fix" that problem with real-time-time-stretching. So yes, there is >> > a rather practical use (but I actually don't advise to syncing two >> > devices without a common-clock) for real-time audio stretching (its also >> > called a dither-buffer but why use these algorithms when there is >> > rubberband and co?). >> I guess you mean resampling, otherwise I don't think it's phisically >> possible to go ahead or behind in time. > > Whats the difference in this respect? Both change the number of samples, do > they?
The difference is enormous: the host has to know if the plugin does resampling! >> I'm not interest in resampling plugins, but maybe someone else is? > > Not me, but when you start designing a plugin-interface with that attitude, > you will loose. You _are_ interested in all possible plugins because you want > your interface to rule the world and be used by all plugin-devs. (Regardless > whether we are talking EPAMP, LV2, LADSPA, VST or gstreamer-plugins.) This is not true for every plugin API. By design, some are meant to be universal, others are not. It's a matter of choice IMHO. Stefano _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
