Re: [Traverso-devel] Routing: SubGroups

[plutek-infinity]

>From: Remon Sijrier <address@hidden>
>Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:14:50 +0100

>> one thing that jumps out at me is this statement, on page 8: "In theory the
>>  MasterOut bus is nothing but a subgroup where all signals pass through
>>  before going to the hardware."
>
>I think Nicola meant that this subgroup has no other function then that every 
>track/subgroup that 'send' it's processed data to Master Out is 'send' to the 
>hardware playback that was configured.
>
>> 
>> does this imply that you are not allowing connection to external processes,
>>  except from MasterOut? there are lots of scenarios in which one might want
>>  to send signals from subs or tracks to other hardware besides the main
>>  monitors, or to other software for processing. then, of course, we should
>>  also be able to connect arbitrary input points to output from other
>>  software as well, so that we can form processing loops which are external
>>  to traverso.
>
>You mean using jack ? 

yes.

>That's partially what this change is all about. Each 
>Track will be able to send to whatever 'playback' (also called output) Bus the 
>'AudioDevice' presents. AudioDevice is Traverso's abstraction for the 
>different audio drivers we support. In case of using the JackDriver, the user 
>will be able to create 'virtual ports (grouped in Buses)' which can be 
>selected as output/input buses in Track/SubGroup's .
>The user then still has to connect the ports in e.g. qjackctl

ok, cool.

>> i guess, in terms of external DSP, i'm getting into things which are
>>  usually handled by inserts and sends, which may be beyond what you're
>>  currently implementing. however, for live monitoring, the ability to send
>>  Sub or Track outputs to arbitrary hardware could be quite useful.
>
>I'm aware of that, it would mean (from my understanding of sends/inserts) that 
>a Track/SubGroup can send it's data to multiple 'receivers', correct?

for sends, yes.

inserts are generally a case of sending out to one thing and returning from 
that thing, all within a given track or bus. it's like inserting a plugin, 
except that the processing is an external entity.

>Something for a future release most likely, unless you think it's critical 
>from a design pov, so we don't have to redo the work we're planning to do now 
>:)

well, reverb is a critical functionality, and our best and most flexible is 
currently jconvolver. this operates only as an independant jack client. we 
really need to be able to route audio to/from this, using both tracks and 
subgroups, and an insert is the cleanest solution for that.

>In fact, if this is what you meant, then it shouldn't be too hard to 
>implement. Something that worries me though is how to deal with latency, so 
>eventually we have to rewrite the processing control in Traverso but who 
>cares...

hmmm.... right.
 
i wonder... does paul compensate for latency in ardour inserts? i guess he must 
--- perhaps i should go and test that.

cheers!


-- 
.pltk.