Why I/O plugins are cheaper than busses
This commit is contained in:
parent
a9cc6b3037
commit
b01fbdbf8a
@ -11,8 +11,17 @@
|
|||||||
number of tracks or busses in Ardour. This is a lot like doing some of the
|
number of tracks or busses in Ardour. This is a lot like doing some of the
|
||||||
processing with a chain of guitar pedals, then feeding the signal to an Aux In
|
processing with a chain of guitar pedals, then feeding the signal to an Aux In
|
||||||
port on a mixing console or an input port on a multi-effects digital
|
port on a mixing console or an input port on a multi-effects digital
|
||||||
pedalboard. The rationale for pre-processing with I/O plugins is that it's a
|
pedalboard.
|
||||||
more lightweight way to do it as compared to busses.
|
</p>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<p>
|
||||||
|
The rationale for pre-processing with I/O plugins is that it's a more
|
||||||
|
lightweight way to do it as compared to busses. Much of that is because busses
|
||||||
|
have automatable parameters such as fader and panner positions, as well as
|
||||||
|
plugins' parameters. Evaluating automation (even when there's none) is
|
||||||
|
expensive in terms of CPU use. However I/O plugins are not automatable, so
|
||||||
|
there's no evaluation happening. As far as Ardour is concerned, they are
|
||||||
|
almost like JACK audio server clients running alongside Ardour.
|
||||||
</p>
|
</p>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<p>
|
<p>
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user