Paul Davis wrote: >>the thing is that you need to keep time well-defined >>and controllable at one point, for the whole network. >>if you don't, things like synchronization and transport >>control are tough to get right. > >yet earlier, you wrote: > >>yes, because you are confusing things yourself. there is >>only one time within one system. if you sync this system >>to external, the flow of this time sways somewhat, but >>it's still one integral time. > >so, there isn't just one time! this is the whole issue with positional >versus rate synchronization. positional references provide one kind of >time ("transport" or "virtual" time). its not monotonic, not invariant >and not continous. rate synchronization controls a continuous, but not >necessarily monotonic or invariant flow of time.
if you don't lock all the network to refer to one time, as you will know, parts of it will go out of sync because they depend on either the realtime or the sample clock, or you keep the whole network in sync to external. en tout cas, all the network refers to one time, and only one at a time. that's the point i'm trying to make. if it doesn't come over when i put it like this i should take a few weeks off and brush up on my english. tim