Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Catching up with XAP
From: David Olofson (david_AT_olofson.net)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 16:43:52 EET
On Wednesday 15 January 2003 15.28, David Olofson wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 January 2003 14.46, Steve Harris wrote:
> > > I don't follow you at all - a new note is a new note. If your
> > > instrument has a glissando control, use it. It does the right
> > > thing. Each new note gets a new VVID.
> >
> > I agree with Tim about this.
Another observation:
There are two ways you could start notes on a monophonic synth:
1. Use the same VVID for all notes
2. Use a new VVID for each note.
If the synth actually looks at VVIDs, it could interpret these
differently. For example:
Same VVID: Retrig envelope, slide pitch etc.
New VVID: Full reset; restart oscillators etc.
Now, looking at the default behavior of mono synths ignoring VVIDs,
what does that imply? Well, since a mono synth generally has only one
voice, it seems more or less obvious that the "same VVID" case is
what's implied when VVIDs are ignored. This is also obvious when you
look at the sender side; you need only one VVID to drive a mono
synth, so why should you keep reassigning it to the same voice all
the time?
Anyway, it would make more sense to me if mono synths were basically
just poly synths that support at most one voice, than if they were
completely special-cased WRT voice control.
If you can control the voice of a mono synth with a single VVID (or
an implicit, fixed VVID, if the synth doesn't even check the VVID
field), why not control each voice of a poly synth in the same manner?
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. |
| RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. |
`---------------------------> http://olofson.net/audiality -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 16:50:54 EET