28 Feb
2003
28 Feb
'03
5:11 p.m.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:05:19 +0100
David Olofson <david(a)olofson.net> wrote:
I must admit I haven't followed this discussion too closely, so you've probably
covered all this before, but I think all this work to figure out if you are processing
silent data is not really as much a win to be worth the hassle - as it won't ever make
the worst case faster.
Time would probably be better spent finding actual bottlenecks and optimising them.
dave
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. see current
implementation...
[...]
one advantage is with silent sub nets....
I'm not sure it's that easy. What about plugins with tails and/or
internal state? (Delay, reverbs, most filters, ...) You can't just
stopp running these when they get no input, or when you don't need
their output.