Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Plug-in API progress?

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Plug-in API progress?
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: la syys   25 1999 - 01:34:03 EDT


In message <99092501364301.00438_AT_localhost.localdomain>you write:
>On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
>> >(Personally, I don't even think GUI and processing code should be
>> >allowed to be in the same address space...)
>>
>> David, we're clearly not on the same planet :)
>
>Are you kidding? :-)

Well, only partly. putting them in different address spaces prohibits
the scheme for parameter updates that i've described, and i think that
doing so would be bad.

>Yes, of course... :-) I'm actually planning to build something like that, but
>I'm a bit worried about cooling of fast SMP machines. Sound traps and a big,
>low RPM fan inside the box should do, I think...

the ISO-BOX fan completely refreshes the box every 20 seconds.

>> >in a big hard disk recording system, up to 50 ms latency for track insert
>>
>> my pro studio friends tell me that they *rarely* (if ever) record more
>> than 16 tracks at once. keep this in mind. playback of, say 64 tracks,
>> is a breeze compared with recording them, and the verdict from the
>> users is: "we don't do that".

>Now, I'm not following... Where did the "record vs. playback"
>discussion get in? Anyway, personally, I rarely record more than 4
>tracks at a time (partly because I'm only one person!), but it's not
>hard to hit the 32 track limit on my current Windoze system when
>mixing down a song.

right, mixdown is not the same as recording. and to clarify, when i
quoted "we don't do that", i meant "we don't record 64 tracks at a
time".

--p


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:27:12 EST