On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Florian Schmidt wrote: > > you can't do tempo-map based transport without sharing the tempo map. > > nobody has suggested a way to do this yet. please feel free. > > Here i would like to chime in :) I think the mapping of BBT to frames > and the other way around isn't something that jack should be concerned > about. IMHO jack should only provide transport based on frame numbers. > > Everything else, like different apps trying to agree with other apps > which frame corresponds to which BBT should really be handled by a > different mechanism. > > The reason for this opinion of mine is that musical time is simply too > complex to be handled by one general mechanism. Think of different apps > using different meters, etc.. Or even a single app using different > meters on different tracks syncing to another app with yet another > meter.
I dont see how a shared tempo map could be useful for these complex situations, unless you are arguing for multiple shared tempo maps, which actually is not much more complicated to design than a single map (although more confusing for app devs)? Usage of the tempo map by an app would be optional of course, so a "simple" map in Jack would not preclude use of other sharing mechanisms. Surely having each app separately calculating its own musical positions is a recipe for disaster, ie lack of solid sync? > IMHO the notion of BBT/tempo/etc. should be local to apps and if needed > be shared via another lib (which, if it finally settled down and became > quasi standard could again become part of jack). Yes it should ultimately go in Jack, imo, as there doesnt seem to be any reason against. (No doubt i have overlooked several important details!) go Florian!! -- Tim Orford
