On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:13:21 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:01:21PM +0000, Dave Griffiths wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:05:19 +0100 > > David Olofson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Friday 28 February 2003 09.20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > [...] > > > > random latency ? how do you mean that ? > > > > > > Latency depends on how you happen to construct the net (order of > > > instantiation, connections etc) and/or the actual layout of the > > > net, in "non-obvious" ways. > > > > In ssm I sort the network each time a connection is made/destroyed, > > and generate a ordered list of modules to process from the root up > > to the leaves. It has to cope with circular sections, which > > unavoidably introduce latency, but it works. It also automatically > > means unconnected modules don't get processed, which is nice. > > how does ssm find out the latency it should impose ? > > and at which position does it impose latency ?
It doesn't impose latency, if there are no circular paths there is no internal latency (er, well there shouldn't be anyway ;)) as the data from a buffer of input audio will hit the output in the same tick. If there are circular sections, they will fall behind by one buffer. In practise this is not really a problem, as you only tend to loop back connections with things like delay effects. dave
