Re: [LAD] LADSPA dilemma

From: Tim Goetze <tim@email-addr-hidden>
Date: Sat Jun 16 2007 - 17:34:19 EEST

[Fons Adriaensen]

>It would also be possible to define that calling run() with nframes
>equal to zero means 'update your internal state to the current
>control values', but this not specified in the LADSPA specs.

I really like this idea. True, it might break some plugins, namely of
course those that divide by the number of frames without looking at
its value -- but these are likely to be the ones that do parameter
smoothing already, and would be updated first.

A simple redefinition of what is already in place that gains us quite
a lot of control over parameter smoothing. Very elegant, I think.

Tim
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sat Jun 16 20:15:01 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 16 2007 - 20:15:01 EEST