Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] a port/buffer proposal
From: Richard Guenther (rguenth_AT_tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de)
Date: Tue May 22 2001 - 17:51:11 EEST
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Paul Davis wrote:
> >Note that I dont think things like automatic mixing are actually
> >useful to support in the "backend" - those are really user interface
> >issues (dont clobber networks with lots of mixes / splits - in GLAME
> >we have a mix plugin and a one2n plugin).
>
> One2N is simple and dealt with without mixing. The problem is
> ManyToOne, and that requires mixing or banning such arrangements. If
> you allow it only via a mixer plugin then that plugin needs an
> arbitrary and totally variable number of inputs which should
> dynamically expand (and probably decrease) as the number of
> connections to it increases and decreases. This would make for a
> problematic and rather pointless UI, I think.
For glame you can connect any number of connections to one single port,
the plugin sees this as a list of pipes associated with a port. So
this is no problem at all - the mix filter allows mixing n streams
down to 1 (where n is from 1 to infinity).
> If you ban ManyToOne, then apps that want to do submixes need to
> provide their own mechanism for this, which seems redundant. Ardour in
> particular will often need to bounce down a set of signals to a new
> diskstream, and i'd rather use a generic mechanism inherent in the
> overall system than some Ardour-specific hack to do that.
Sure - see above.
Richard.
-- Richard Guenther <richard.guenther_AT_uni-tuebingen.de> WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/ The GLAME Project: http://www.glame.de/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu May 24 2001 - 05:42:24 EEST