12 Aug
2009
12 Aug
'09
9:05 p.m.
On 12/8/2009, "David Robillard" <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 23:39 +0100, james morris wrote:
Don't be daft! I'll admit my LP filter example was less than concise.
On 12/8/2009, "Steve Harris"
<steve(a)plugin.org.uk> wrote:
.... I don't think "or ganging the control ports" really quite conveys
the idea entirely ;) On 12 Aug 2009, at 23:20, David Robillard wrote:
that's what i thought what i said implied [scratches head].
Allow one group of ports to have either no replication, or the same
replication count as another group of ports. Obvious example being,
controls tend to stick to 1, audio tends to get replicated, but we may
want to replicate the controls to match audio. So, a single plugin
could do all of the above cases in a single instance, if the author
wants to do it that way.
That makes sense to me.
> >> Allow one group of ports to have either
no replication, or the same
> >> replication count as another group of ports. Obvious example being,
Which group of ports? The output group from the previous plugin in the
chain? Why not just the number of channels? That's all that's needed
for the simple case I'm talking about.
Would it be worth having two extensions? One for complex examples useful
for (modular) synthesis and voice polyphony, and another for the simple
cases such as the lp filter example?
james.