|Subject:||Re: [fluid-dev] Trying another reverb ?|
|Date:||Mon, 23 Oct 2017 02:43:41 +0200 (CEST)|
Hi, Marcus and GrahamG
Thanks for your interrest.
>So maybe what we need is a system where we can have multiple reverb implementations in core FluidSynth and a setting that can be used to select one >of the implementations.
>Let me explain that idea in a bit more detail. What I have in mind is a better defined interface (basically an internal API) for the reverb and chorus >effects. Something that works a little like LADSPA, only less generic and more specific to FluidSynth.
The fact that it is API specific to FluidSynth make the things OS independant. I like this idea.
Yes, but to keep things simple at a first time and to give you the possibility to ear the result quickly . I propose the following that is simple for me:
1)I give a file called fluid_mrev2.c. It will contain the two reverb (freemverb, and freeverb) and of course the API expected by the FluidSynth library(defined in fluid_rev.h) .
-At the top of the file the variable: char freemverb = 1; // 1: use freemverb 0:use freeverb
2)The file fluid_mrev2.c is intended to replace the original fluid_rev.c
3)Now you have the possibility to build tow version of the FluidSynth library,
- the one with 'char freemverb = 1' using freemverb (stand for 'free modulated reverb')
- the other with 'char freemverb = 0'. using freeverb.
Note:fluid_mrev2.c is actually a working reverb and the code is a draft not yet intended to be easly understandable. It works and will be used
with usual shell reverb commands.
This could be done in a couple of days.
> Message du 22/10/17 21:14
> De : "Marcus Weseloh" <address@hidden>
> A : "FluidSynth mailing list" <address@hidden>
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [fluid-dev] Trying another reverb ?
>I would also be very interested in a better sounding reverb.
>I've written a different reverb as well, implementing a "sympathetic string reverb" using tuned comb filters. Currently I maintain it in a custom fork, but I wanted a maintainable solution. So I started working on the LADSPA plugin system: getting it working properly and in a stable manner, documenting it and tuning the performance. The largest part of the changes is already merged in the master branch on GitHub. So adding a different reverb would be as easy as writing a LADSPA plugin, disabling the internal reverb and configuring the new one as a plugin. But I guess that won't be much use for people using FluidSynth on non-Unix platforms...
>So maybe what we need is a system where we can have multiple reverb implementations in core FluidSynth and a setting that can be used to select one of the implementations.
>2017-10-22 19:14 GMT+02:00 Graham Goode <address@hidden>:
> Yes, there would be great interest in this, particularly from the
> jOrgan users group as many of use us use fluidsynth with the current
> reverb engine.
> Kind regards,
> On 10/22/17, Ceresa Jean-Jacques <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > For another application than FluidSynth i have build a reverb (intended to
> > be called freemverb) that sounds less "ringing" that freeverb.
> > Like freeverb , freemverb is a "late" reverb and have a low cpu load
> > (sligtly above freeverb) and low memory cost.
> > Both freeverb and freemverb aren't high quality reverb, but it seems that
> > freemverb gives better results (at least on my ears).
> > It would be easy to build a version of freemverb for fluidsynth with the
> > same Reverb' API (v 1.0.6 or above if versions above have the same Reverb
> > API than v1.0.6 ?).
> > Before doing that, i wish to know:
> > 1) If there are any interests for FluidSynth ?.
> > 2) Also it is necessary that others peoples than me care objectives tests
> > (by ears) ?.
> > Let me know your opinion.
> > Regards
> > jjc
> fluid-dev mailing list
fluid-dev mailing list
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|