On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:51:03 +0200, Sami P Perttu wrote: > > You still need WET and DRY, even if you have mixing. > > True... sorry, I have confused DRY with the value (not control) that tells > what to multiply previous output buffer contents with. The host cannot do > that if more than two output buffers are the same. DRY, on the other > hand, is supposed to be the input gain. WET and DRY actually have nothing > to do with mixing in this context - wouldn't the user rather provide them?
Yes, it might be nice to hint them, but its not neccesary. > > Linear pitch (logartihmic frequency) is just what people expect. When you > > modulte the cutoff of a filter (for example) you expect it to modulate > > logarithmicly. > > That is no answer. What do people's expectations have to do with it? We > are discussing a plugin API here. Or are you saying that logarithmic > interpolation gives better sounding results than piece-wise linear > approximation of the same with a segment length of, say, 64 samples? Expect is too weak a word. I would regard a filter that (only) offered linear frequency modulation as broken. - Steve
