Re: Offline processing
Re: Offline processing
- Subject: Re: Offline processing
- From: Alberto Ricci <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:08:12 +0100
At 6:07 PM -0500 2/4/03, James Chandler Jr wrote:
Reckon a "strict" definition of real time might be inserting an effect
between A/D and D/A converters, with latency low enough that a musician
would tolerate the play-thru latency during an overdub?
For our purposes, I would say that realtime is just being able to
provide enough output samples given a number of input samples.
If the input and output sampling rates are equal, being able to run
in real time means that your AU can output at least as many samples
as it receives as the input.
In fact, it makes sense being able to define real time even if the
input material is not live input, but something that was previously
recorded or generated on the fly.
It is true that a certain latency might be necessary for a
satisfactory result (for instance, take the realtime vibrato I talked
about yesterday). However, even if the latency is very long, an
effect can still be defined as running in real time - that is, it can
produce enough output to keep a steady flow of samples running.
though it would be quite a trick to make a "hard
real time" normalizer, track reverser, time-stretch, or granulizer (is that
I would say that these effects cannot be achieved in real time, no
matter how much work you put into coding it, if the input is live
input. If, on the other hand, the input is readily-available,
pre-recorded or pre-generated material, and the host provides
random-access callbacks, then you can of course run them in order to
get real time output, with no particular efforts on your side,
provided you have a fast enough CPU of course, but that's a different
issue.
Best,
Alberto.
_______________________________________________
coreaudio-api mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/coreaudio-api
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.