MJ wrote:
>Niels Gorisse wrote:
>
>> The demo has all modules, but the Effects are left out; that is
>> more-or-less unofficially said (on the saol-developers list) to be legal
>> (more or less).
>
>:-) That's a conformance question, can anybody answer that ?
Presently, there are no conformance criteria for reverb().
Personally, I now think that it was a mistake to use this weird
parameterization. I don't know much about reverbs, and someone
else convinced me that this was a good idea. :) As it turns
out, there's only a handful of people in the world that
know how to implement a reverb based on this parametrization
(notably, J.-M. Jot does one in his dissertation).
Perhaps when it comes time to put together the first SA
corrigendum, we should consider proposing to remove this
parameterization in favor of a simpler one.
That said, I feel that implementations *should* implement
the simpler version of reverb(), at least so that something
happens when content authors use the opcode. saolc is
presently lacking in that it is not implemented there.
sfront does, though, and I'm sure SAINT does or will,
since effects-processing is the main thrust of their
goal with SA implementation.
Best,
-- Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 11:46:37 EST