On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 08:38:10 +0100, David Olofson wrote: > > It sounds like the wrong thing, the general case is that the host > > generates values its knows to be in range, then the plugin checks > > it again to check its in range... > > Not the host; the *sender*. That is the sequencer (which can be part > of the host), or more interestingly, any plugin that has control > outputs.
OK, but it seems like a bad requirement to place on the plugin. If we allow it, it really should be to be the host that enforces it. > > If we allow hard ranges (not really neccesary, as LADSPA shows) > > then the host should enforce them. > > Which would mean the host has to break in whenever you connect two > controls, *only* to do this. Yes, thats (one of the reasons) why its bad. > On Thursday 06 February 2003 11.38, Steve Harris wrote: > [...audio data...] > > "Normalised floating point" is a well know term, but normalised > > between -1.0 and 1.0 is wrong. > > Why? Is +/- 42.0 P-P or something a better 0 dB reference? :-) Ah, I meant "not the right phrase", not "not the right thing". > [...points about silence in RT systems...] > > You cant use the "free" cycles, because youre never sure when the > > plugin is going to wake up and start chewing CPU again, and in any > > case you dont know how much it was really using. > > It's useful in Audiality, but only really when you're dealing with > multiple songs, "rooms" or whatever in the same application. Might be > that it's not a feature that should be in XAP. I would say so. > > "Silence" is relative. A reverb will onyl decay to mathematic > > silence after a really long time, but that isnt the intention of > > this hint IMNSHO. > > Good point, though it doesn't make silence useless in Audiality, at > least. If the reverb *does* go "silent" within any reasonably amount > of time, the information is useful. Synths generally go silent as > soon as the release phase of the last note is done (which is > generally well defined), so it's *definitely* useful there. Useful for post-roll yes, but not really useful saving a few cycles. > The reason I have it is that games and other multimedia stuff should > be able to just set up all FX processing needed for the whole thing > and then not worry about it. You can have the full FX net for every > song in the game "running" at all times virtually without cost. The > plugins won't start burning CPU until you actually send some sound > their way, and they'll stop burning CPU as soon as their tails are > out. > > Whether or not this is useful in your average studio is another > matter, but it does *work*. Right, I suspect it isn;t the reuirements and aims are different. - Steve
