4 Feb
2003
4 Feb
'03
3:52 a.m.
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 02:22:31 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
OK, that would be enough, but its not ideal. Sometimes the most
convienient (and efficient) thing for the plguin to do is to accumulate
into the output buffer.
I was more worried about the comb filtering, but yes, that too.
- Steve
On Tuesday 04 February 2003 00.41, Steve Harris
wrote:
Yes, there was a proposed extension to LADSPA that used seek/read/write
style i/o to access non RT data.
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 02:52:54 -0800, Tim
Hockin wrote:
Not the same thing. I think offline processing allows seek, reverse
etc.
How would you handle (audio time?) seeking and reverse processing?
Well, of course, it's no problem if the plugin is *designed* for it... *
Process mode: Mixed/RT/Off-Line.
do we really want anything like this? I have a 1-10 'quality'
level. Its very
inconvienient for certain algorithms. The plugin doesn't
know ahead of time how big the buffer is going to be, so it cant
prealoocate an intermediate buffer.
Actually, plugins do know the *maximum* buffer size they can get. This
is a critical API feature for many plugins. Mix is not the
same as wet/dry. Imagine you have an effect with an
inherant delay of 64 samples, the dry output is the input delayed
by 64 samples.
Good point. But that also means that plugins with delay *have* to do
this properly, or they'll ruin the host's efforts to compensate for
FX latency.