From: Holger M. <ho...@ma...> - 2012-09-28 02:32:10
|
Hi all, Rosegarden should be designed in a way that no-one should have to shift segments arout to get them in sync again after adding LADSPA-plugins to instruments or subgroups or changing the hardware. I'd like to discuss the latencies with you that can occur and how and where they should be compensated before we actually create patches. Therefore I'd like to draw a diagram as a starting point. It may be wrong but after some time it should clearly display all the latencies that sum up. Is anyone interested? Is there still some documentation? Best regards Holger |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2012-09-28 10:15:49
|
On 28 September 2012 03:32, Holger Marzen <ho...@ma...> wrote: > I'd like to discuss the latencies with you that can occur and how and > where they should be compensated before we actually create patches. That sounds like a good idea. I seem to remember the problem that the existing implementation ran into, was that it was initially trying to do wholly automatic latency compensation when recording -- which isn't possible, because the necessary compensation depends on what you're recording. What it probably needs is automatic compensation only for the known output latencies (e.g. effects plugins) across all track types -- which it is supposed to do, but which you've found isn't working properly -- plus easy nudges for new tracks forward and backward by common latency periods following recording, with some more useful options than the current delay setting. Chris |
From: Ted F. <te...@te...> - 2012-09-28 11:44:42
|
On 09/27/2012 10:32 PM, Holger Marzen wrote: > Is there still some documentation? Documentation is kept on the wiki. http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/wiki/start Ted. |