1 Mar
2003
1 Mar
'03
1:14 p.m.
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:13:21 +0100
torbenh(a)gmx.de wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:01:21PM +0000, Dave
Griffiths wrote:
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
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:05:19 +0100
David Olofson <david(a)olofson.net> wrote:
how does ssm find out the latency it should impose ?
and at which position does it impose latency ? On Friday 28 February 2003 09.20, torbenh(a)gmx.de
wrote:
[...]
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. 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.