20 Jun
2006
20 Jun
'06
3:50 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 10:58 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 15:26 +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
Hm, yeah, that would at least allow the verifier to check that plugins
without a latency port aren't latent, which is nice (and that's the main
problem anyway)
-DR-
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 09:39:30 -0400, Dave
Robillard wrote:
we could require plugins that delay the signal but are not latent to
have the required port (which would report zero) I can make the plugin validating host check the
latency primitively (eg
run a single sample through the buffer) and fail if it isn't reported
correctly, so we're sure the LADSPA latency woes are gone.
What if it's a delay line? I think you have to reply on the concience of
plugin programmers to get it right.