Henrik Enquist

In the current implementation I'm not thinking of the target_level as a desired delay, but instead as a desired safety margin against underruns. So it aims to keep the margin...

> Maybe it would be useful to monitor time progress of the Processing latency, to be able to observe its effect on the margin. This is actually quite easily doable...

I have considered this and think it could be quite useful. What I have in mind is a simple dummy input device where you specify number of channels, what signal...

That's an interesting idea! This could get rid of a lot of duplication from configs. It could even be done in a backward compatible way by adding a new pipeline...

Another option is to just rename the `channel` property of the filter step to `channels` and change it to a list. Giving `null` could maybe mean all channels. That would...

Using a special string value like "all" for all channels gets quite clunky to handle. Using `null` for default, meaning all channels, is much easier. ``` channels: null --> default,...

Why not use the much more compact checkboxes like in the compressor? Now there are two quite different solutions to the same problem.

That is the idea. It will be a breaking change, so I moved it to v3.0. Shouldn't matter since this was anyway the next thing I planned to change after...

implemented in https://github.com/HEnquist/camilladsp/pull/324

It would be possible but there would be some disadvantages. First one is that the default volume control is done in the processing thread. That could be handled by moving...