Re: [Traverso-devel] Behaviour of mute/solo

[Nicola Doebelin]

Hi Remon,

Am Freitag, 22. September 2006 16:00 schrieb Remon Sijrier:
> The question however is, what should be prefered?
> A (relatively) small optimization by not syncing 'silenced' AudioClips, or
> a slightly better user experience by not having a 'lag' after an
> unsolo/mute before the audioclip is 'audible' again.

Is it just the position of the play cursor that would be kept in sync? Or 
would all real time effects be processed, but not played back? What is 
important IMO is that all sound processing steps of muted tracks are bypassed 
in order to save cpu consumption. The gap between switching and hearing the 
effect is no problem IMO, but it should be possible to reduce cpu *and hard 
disc* usage by muting certain tracks. This can be handy when working close to 
the limit of cpu and disc performance.

> The buffers size will become user configurable btw.

That's great, as the setting is heavily dependent on hardware performance and 
type of project (e.g. many tracks vs. a stereo project).

Cheers,
Nic