Re: [Om-synth] Re: midi control of effects

[Scott Davidson]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:37:06 -0400, "Dave Robillard"
<address@hidden> said:
> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 14:03 -0700, Scott Davidson wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:39:17 +0200, "Lars Luthman"
> > <address@hidden> said:
> > > On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 12:55 -0600, Jake Michaelson wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the quick response, Dave. I like your idea - I would  
> > > > describe this new node as a toggle switch: on the left of the node  
> > > > one audio in and one MIDI in, on the right side of the node two audio  
> > > > outs.  Only one audio out would be active at any given time, and if  
> > > > the node receives the specified MIDI message, it toggles between the  
> > > > outs.  To get my desired result I could use this "theoretical node"  
> > > > as follows: one audio out could route directly into the master PCM  
> > > > out (pass-through) and the other could route through an effects patch  
> > > > and finally end up at the same PCM master out.  Sending a MIDI  
> > > > message would simply toggle these routes (effect applied/no effect  
> > > > applied).
> > > 
> > > It sounds a bit too specific - I'd rather see a node with a single MIDI
> > > input (and possibly a control input to select the program number) and a
> > > single audio output, where the audio output signal is a gate that is
> > > controlled by MIDI PCs. Then it could be used with a mixer plugin or
> > > some signal logic to create the effect/bypass thing.
> > > 
> > > Not that I would be opposed to anyone writing a plugin like the one you
> > > described, of course.
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > I like the plugin/gate idea and I respect the fact that the Node is
> > intended to be relatively naive. However, wouldn't the original plugin
> > node you are trying to bypass still be eating up processor cycles? Seems
> > like this could get expensive, depending on the plugin. I guess you
> > could put the plugin in a patch and use the existing patch-bypass
> > functionality in conjunction with the plugin/gate, but that might get
> > cumbersome.
> 
> External plugin nodes have zero runtime overhead over internal ones, if
> that's what you mean.
> 
> -DR-
> 

I was just saying that the external plugin would still be chuging away,
potentially doing some expensive processing/FFTs. In the case that we're
not sending it any signal to process, it would be nice to
disable/disconnect the external plugin, or whatever the semantics are
for LADSPA/LV2. (Apologies for not being very familiar with the plugin
API).

-Scott

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...