Re: Mutitimbral - A clarification, sort of
Re: Mutitimbral - A clarification, sort of
- Subject: Re: Mutitimbral - A clarification, sort of
- From: "Michael Olsen" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:25:01 +0100
- Organization: IK Multimedia
>
> A: (As Angus says) you don't have to instantiate 16 plugins
>
Where is the problem with instantiate 16 plugins? We are talking about
>
shared code and data here. The overhead is minimal.
The problem is from the users point of view... Managing 16 windows is not optimal, when it can be done in 1.
>
> B: The multiple parts can share the same voice manager. (This is very
>
> important in my opinion).
>
In which terms? To manage in a way a part of the overall cpu load?
So that the 16-parts together (i.e. the "full sound module") can share the same polyphony managenet. This way you can, for instance, set all 16-parts to 32-notes, and let each part have priorities, as you see it in hardware modules.
>
This
>
is only of use if you use only one instance of one plugin in the whole
>
system, isn't it?
No, but I admit it makes more sense then.
>
> C: The multiple parts can share the same (build-into-instrument)
>
> effects (Admittedly, we don't do that in SampleTank, but some
>
> developers might want to).
>
It would be more flexible when the send effect you described and the
>
synthesis parts are separate Audio Units.
The problem about doing that is that then we wouldn't be able to make presets which covers both instruments and effects.
The other issues aside, the really important point, I feel, is (B). And please don't tell me it doesn't make sense because of other instruments, because it does (maybe I have plug A set to 32 notes, and plug B set to 64 notes, and I know that this will never cause cpu overload).
Rgds,
Michael Olsen
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
coreaudio-api mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/coreaudio-api
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.