Is running an idle graph considered expensive?
Is running an idle graph considered expensive?
- Subject: Is running an idle graph considered expensive?
- From: Daniel Jalkut <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:17:18 -0700
I have an AUGraph consisting of a synth music device and a default
output unit.
Up to now, I've played notes through this device using the
MusicSequence/Track/Player approach. This gave me a very clear concept
of when and for how long notes would need to be played through the
graph. Now, I'm adding a "piano keyboard" to my interface, which
should allow the user to test the sound of the device at any time.
When the user clicks a key, I send a StartNote call to the graph, and
when they release, I send an EndNote.
I've noticed that I have to have the graph "running" in order to have
these start and stop notes do anything. So my question is, should
running the graph be something that is considered expensive, or is it
entirely dependent on the amount of incoming data? The documentation
says that AUGraphStart "starts rendering." If there is no input to the
graph, is rendering essentially free, or is the default output device
chugging away turning zeros into silence?
It's hard to get a good semantic understanding for how and when
AUGraphStart/Stop should be called, because most of the sample code is
packaged as "test code" where it's not clear whether performance is
being considered.
Basically I want to know whether the "AUGraphStart" is more analogous
to turning the power on a device (less expensive) or pushing play on
the device (more expensive).
Thanks!
Daniel
_______________________________________________
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.