Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] XAP spec & PTAF comments [merge]
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Sat Feb 08 2003 - 14:20:29 EET
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 03:06:40 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> On Saturday 08 February 2003 02.17, Tim Hockin wrote:
> [...]
> > Assuming we really want to allow soft-limits (which I just don't
> > get), we can just say that if you want a hardlimit, constrain it
> > internally.
>
> Yeah.
>
> As to soft limits, I think the main point is to relieve the plugin
> author of the task of figuring out the absolute minimum and maximum
> control values that could possibly generate any interesting results,
> so he/she doesn't have to release a modified plugin under a different
> major version number later on, just to extent some control ranges.
>
> If you can't decide on the "useful" range, just throw something
> reasonable into the range hints, and clamp to some bigger range that
> you know is technically safe for the algorithm. If users want to look
> for cool effects outside the "official" ranges, they can, and
> although plugins might produce evil noises (which some actually might
> find useful), they won't crash or anything like that.
This is exactly what I do in LADSPA and it works quite well. Many plugins
make interesting noises if you give way out of range controls.
> > I'm all for optimizations, but really, this is a MICRO MICRO MICRO
> > MICRO optimization. SOMEONE SOMEWHERE is going to do a conditional
> > and constrain. Be it the host or the plugin.
>
> Yes. The only exceptions would be when you have a hard limited output
> that's within the range of a hard limited input, and when you have
> prerecorded data. However, the latter case only applies if you assume
> that recorded data will be destructively processed whenever you
> connect something. *heh*
Many controls dont need to be clamped at all, it might do something odd if
you go outside the ranges, but it wont crash.
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 14:18:55 EET