Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] virtual sampler
From: Dave Griffiths (dave_AT_pawfal.org)
Date: Thu Mar 21 2002 - 20:37:41 EET
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:05:09 -0300
> Juan Linietsky <coding_AT_reduz.com.ar> wrote:
>
> > Ah, let me clarify on the "cpu hog" usage. When I make music, i tend to
> > mix several voices together, like a drum track, bass, some low pad,
strings or normal pads, arrangements such as trumpets, brasses,
resonators, bellpads, waves, etc, maybe lead instruments, or a piano,
> > organ,rhodes,etc. This needs a huge amount of simultaneous channel
playback, around 50,60 or so if i'm using proper falloff in the
envelopes (not abrupt). Trackers have been supporting this (since
impulse tracker), for many years now, but usually people that writes
some kind of synth engine (wavetable or oscilator based) never seems to
go for speed (poliphony). ...
>
> I don't think that's necessarily the case.. getting these things to
run fast is far from easy given the amount of computation involved, and
having something which works is surely more important? plus, if there
_were_ a documented way of getting much better performance, surely
everyone would use it? i certainly would ;-)
>
Indeed, there is a big difference between sample playing trackers and
fully blown synthesis. To do millions of polyphonic tracks all at once
is what we all want, but you have to comprimise.
The only option is to sample what you can, and synthesise what you can.
I actually think there is a lot to be said for being forced to think
about these issues when making music - creativity comes from restrictions.
Dave
: www.pawfal.org :
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Mar 21 2002 - 20:25:50 EET