On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 07:31:04AM +0100, torbenh wrote: > i am basically more in favour of timestamped events. > but your argumentation in this thread is pretty convincing. > and timestamped events come with a galore of other problems, > which i think are harder to tackle in a jack context.
I'll repeat once again ** Low rate control signals are not meant to replace generic timestamped events which are still needed. ** They provide a solution for some cases that are quite difficult to handle with events, even if you don't consider the Jack context, i.e. the variable data size. For example it would be quite hairy to use discrete events to create a C1 continuous control signal - C1 means no 'jumps' and no 'corners'. It can be done but would require a level of complexity that breaks the charms of the basic idea and would make most potential users run away screaming. Just combining (adding) two such streams with non-coincident events would be a real nightmare. With continuous control signals the burden of ensuring it has the required qualities for a particular use (e.g. any degree of continuity, or spectral limits) are on the generator of the control signal. The receiver would be safe to use it at its full bandwidth, but doesn't have to do this - it could still cut corners for efficiency if it wanted, and in most cases that would actually happen as Fs/16 is overkill anyway. The 1/16 rate is chosen because it ensures that even with a period size of 16 (the practical limit IMHO) all periods are still equal, and a factor of 16 reduction in stored data size makes it usable. Having non-power-of-2 period sizes complicates the picture. When and why was this allowed ? I'm pretty sure it will break a lot of code (including some of mine, including probably Aeolus and Jconvolver). Ciao, -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte ! _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
