Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] XAP: a polemic
From: Tim Goetze (tim_AT_quitte.de)
Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 14:37:36 EET
David Olofson wrote:
>> it's much simpler. imagine the transport time rolling on
>> through a 'stop',
>> and some plugins handling things a bit
>> differently.
>
>That's what I don't quite like. I'd prefer if plugins that don't care
>could... well, just not care! :-)
they can, rest assured.
during "virtual time", the tempo and beat measure at the point
where the transport has stopped remain in effect.
tick, time and frame counts continue to roll. plugins that are
not locking to transport time, ie. those that seem to interest
you the most, do not need to care at all about the distinction.
those that do lock to transport time, ie. those who record and
playback, are usually inactive while the transport is standing
still, though they do not need to.
>With audio timestamps, that would be very easy, and I'm still failing
>to see how there can be any complications in dealing with musical
>time, just because you stamp events with something else, that has a
>known relation to musical time for every sample of the current block.
in fact the kind of timestamp you choose is irrelevant in this
context i think.
tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Dec 16 2002 - 21:52:52 EET