>Hi Majik,
>
>majik wrote:
>
>>---Here is an email I sent a little while ago to Kai Vehmanen:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have been looking through the Soundtracker 0.6.7 code as I have
>>> been
>>>wanting to improve the jack output. It would be excellent if Soundtracker
>>>could output each of its channels to a Jack port, instead of (as well as?)
>>>outputting the mix the two mono channels. Unfortunately, Im only a beginner
>>>when it comes to audio coding and was wondering if someone could hack it
>>>together for me?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>---And his reponse:
>>
>>that would be a cool feature to have, but unfortunately not a trivial
>>thing to add (though not impossible either). You could try to ask about
>>this on the soundtracker mailing list (or possible on linux-audio-dev)...
>>maybe someone else is also interested and has the time to help.
>>Unfortunately I don't have much time for FOSS-development atm, so I'll
>>have to pass. .(
>>
>>
>>---Will anyone help with this? I believe that the problem is that the mixer
>>code works in a monolithic way, thus needs a rewrite.
>>
>>
>>
>This issue's been discussed on the soundtracker mailing list, months ago.
>
>Here's a quote from Yury Aliaev, a Soundtracker contributor :
>
><quote>
>In the current state of ST such a thing (multichannel output) is almost
>impossible because of the monolitic structure of the mixer code. The
>optimal way to solve this is (I mean) rewriting the whole mixer in the
>modular way. This also will make ST more flexible and universal and, in
>particular, will make adding new effects (including LADSPA processing)
>more easy.
>
>Currently I have some ideas how to do this (but still have no free time
>for this :( ), but there is another way: libremix written by Conrad
>Parker (see remix.sf.net) seems to be good for this purpose.
></quote>
>
>
>A question I asked, a few weeks later :
>
><quote>
>
>> About per track JACK outputs : In your answer to Emiliano Grilli, on
>> june 1st, you explain that this needs a big rewrite. But do you
>> believe a sort of hack is possible ? Like a small patch that lies
>> around for those (I like JACK :) who need this feature before
>> soundtracker engine gets rewritten... If yes, any advise ? Does it
>> imply playing with the mixer assembly routines ?
>
></quote>
>
>And Yury's answer :
>
><quote>
>Unfortunately, it will be a havy hack of assembler routines :( Because
>they mix sounds from different channels directly after resampling,
>rather then write to the separate buffers and then mix them. This is why
>I decided to rewrite the mixer entirely rather then inventing kludges...
></quote>
>
>
>Hope it helps... Yury may have started to rewrite the mixer.
>
>Regards
>
>--
> og
Yes, I did see this, I just wanted to re-illuminate the topic and appeal
through LAD to see if anyone did have some free time to develop this, as I
feel it would be such a great feature.
Matthew Carey
Received on Thu Apr 28 16:15:08 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 28 2005 - 16:15:08 EEST