> > do we really want anything like this? I have a 1-10 'quality' level. > > Not the same thing. I think offline processing allows seek, reverse etc.
I'm not convinced.. > > Do we want to do this for XAP? I'd kind of hoped that XAP would dictate > > that all plugins must be in-place safe. > > Its very inconvienient for certain algorithms. The plugin doesn't know > ahead of time how big the buffer is going to be, so it cant prealoocate an > intermediate buffer. How does this affect in-place vs not in-place? All that means is that the input buffer is the same as the output buffer, no? If the plugin has to buffer, it has to buffer, regardless...I'm not a DSP head, so here is where I may be missing stuff. > > We can standardize a wet/dry gain control pair. But this becomes something > > every plugin needs to provide. Uggh. > > Mix is not the same as wet/dry. Imagine you have an effect with an inherant > delay of 64 samples, the dry output is the input delayed by 64 samples. What does that have to do with mix/no mix? maybe I am missing something, again? Like a piece of hardware, what comes out a port is entirely decided by the plugin. If it mixes in some dry signal, it probably has a wet/dry control. Some may choose not to provide any dry signal at all. What does mix mean for them? Tim