Re: Limit in sample or ms for circular routing (Re: Minutes of Audio WG Teleconference, 2012-05-30)

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:

> To be specific, if one tries to create a loop with 0 delay, it will be
> clamped up either to a fixed number of samples (probably 64 or 128, to be
> defined) or to a fixed number of milliseconds.


What do you mean by "a loop with zero delay"? A loop with no DelayNodes
can't be rescued since you don't know where to put the delay. How is this
"clamp up" supposed to work?


> Defining it in milliseconds breaks for low sample rates, e.g. a 3 ms clamp
> at 8 KHz is just 24 samples, below the block size any implementation will
> want to use.
>

So, give your implementation a minimum sample rate.

(BTW is there any implementation difficulty using block sizes as low as 16?
I can't think of one, other than reduced efficiency.)

(Another approach is to just not allow loops, and I'm looking forward to
> hear what Robert O'Callahan has to say on that.)
>

Chris said loops were an essential feature, and I believe him. They do
interact poorly with many other features though. It's a problem.

We already have the constraint that loops must contain a certain amount of
delay. We will probably have to add more constraints on loops, e.g. that
certain high-latency processing can't be used in a loop.

Rob
-- 
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your Father in heaven. ... If you love those
who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors
doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more
than others?" [Matthew 5:43-47]