On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 09:22:07 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > For what it's worth, many plugs already have internal parameters for soft > bypass (all Powered Plug-Ins have one or more bypass params that provide > both glitch-free bypass and a DSP load reduction), and I believe this is a > better approach because it supports automation and remote control surfaces > better. For this reason, I see no reason to support setBypass unless it > simply maps directly onto a bypass parameter. A more consistent interface
I agree with this entirely... > would be to add a getBypassParamId() call to return the parameter ID for > the bypass parameter, and use the standard get/setParameter() interface to > control it. ...but as we're not using vst, we can simply have a well known port name. I nominate "bypass". votes++; - Steve
