Re: auol and DAWs
Re: auol and DAWs
- Subject: Re: auol and DAWs
- From: Brian Willoughby <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:16:39 -0700
Hi Paul,
On Mar 30, 2010, at 17:57, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Brian Willoughby
<email@hidden> wrote:
But you are right about one thing: If you find a host which has
the features
you want - processing an entire track through an effects chain and
writing
the new data to a new track - then an 'auol' is the right way for
you to
implement the processing you want, provided you understand that
the reading
and writing of data will be handled by the AU host.
of course, there is the slight problem that most 'aufx' plugins can
also support this mode of operation. should their authors label them
as 'aufx' or 'auol'? should a host pay any attention at all to this
classification?
My response was a bit too hasty and poorly worded. Apple engineers
can surely clarify, but I believe that 'auol' is only needed for
effects which are too processor intensive to run in real time. I
guess that's a bit tricky to nail down, since slow machines cannot
run the same effects in real time as the latest machines.
It's always been possible for an AU host to pull data through Audio
Units in non-real-time, whether via AUGraph or directly.
If you label an AU as 'aufx' then nothing prevents a host from using
the effect off line.
If you label an AU as 'auol' then it should be a signal to an AU host
that live audio input cannot be processed by this effect, and the
results cannot be auditioned with a live audio output, meaning that
only music instruments and files can be used for I/O.
As usual, I do not speak for Apple. It's possible that I don't have
the whole picture here.
Brian Willoughby
Sound Consulting
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Coreaudio-api mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden