Re: Mutitimbral - A clarification, sort of
Re: Mutitimbral - A clarification, sort of
- Subject: Re: Mutitimbral - A clarification, sort of
- From: Philippe Wicker <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:02:35 +0200
On Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 08:34 PM, Frank Hoffmann wrote:
On Mittwoch, Juli 16, 2003, at 07:25 Uhr, Michael Olsen wrote:
The other issues aside, the really important point, I feel, is (B).
And please don't tell me it doesn't make sense because of other
instruments, because it does (maybe I have plug A set to 32 notes,
and plug B set to 64 notes, and I know that this will never cause cpu
overload).
Excuse that I have a different opinion. I believe the cpu load and
voice management should be controlled by the host and not the plugin.
To set up every plugin by the user for his needs of cpu and voice
management is simply not convenient.
IMO, it should be controlled by the user not the host, although
possibly through some means provided by the host. But the host can only
take decisions based on the cpu overhead while reasons to shut a voice
on a part may be due to implementation limits **inside** the plugin (eg
pre-allocated memory to manage say, 64 voices). I hardly see how we
could group host level constraints and plugin level constraints in a
consistent manner at the host level only.
Regards,
Philippe Wicker
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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.