Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] XAP and these
> Yes - as long as the song position doesn't skip, because that won't
OK, it took me a bit to grok this. We have four temporal concerns:
1) plugins that need to do things in step with the tempo
> (*) You *really* don't want two events with the same timestamp,
ick...
> Tempo changes
Before I go any further: What's a tick?
> Meter changes
Define PPQN in our terms? Pulses of...
Then I can digest the rest of this email :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28
: Sat Dec 14 2002 - 08:11:32 EET
From: Tim Hockin (thockin_AT_hockin.org)
Date: Sat Dec 14 2002 - 08:05:58 EET
> (*) result in tempo events. Plugins that *lock* (rather than just
> sync) must also be informed of any discontinuities in the timeline,
> such as skips or loops.
- they have a TEMPO control
2) plugins that need to do things on tempo milestones
- they have a TEMPO and can host callback for music-time
3) plugins that need to do things at some point in absolute time
- they have the sample rate, no worries
4) plugins that need to do things at some point in song time
- they have a TRANSPORT control
> where the first says "tempo=-Inf" and the other says
> "tempo=120 BPM". But that would be the closest to the correct
> Whenever the tempo changes, you get a sample
> accurate event with the new tempo.
>
> Unit: Ticks/sample
> When PPQN (who would change *that* in the middle