Al Le wrote:
> On 17.08.2009 19:40, Jeff Goode wrote:
>> Al Le wrote:
>>> why not have a large enough buffer that would be used by all DSP
>>> effects?
>>>
>> Most DSP functions get along well enough without having their input
>> buffered anyway, so it wouldn't come up very often.
>
> Ah, so this DSP effect is the only requiring a large buffer? Then OK.
> But wait... What about time stretch? I think it also uses some kind of
> buffer.
>
That I don't know. Time stretch was being developed concurrently so it
might have come up with its own solution. It could also be a buffer for
a different purpose incompatible with a lookahead buffer.
Received on 2009-08-17