[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [fluid-dev] API design: fluid_synth_process()

From: Ceresa Jean-Jacques
Subject: Re: [fluid-dev] API design: fluid_synth_process()
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 14:49:55 +0200 (CEST)

Hello Tom


> I thought to release a beta in the nearer future. But I would like to have the API ready before I do so.


I have noticed that 24 bits support introduces not negligible lost of performance that could be solved relatively easily .

The way to solve this need some minor pre-cleanup and could be also (though not necessarly) slightly related to interpolation method API cleanup possibilities.

I will continue this discussion sooner on a GitHub issue named "24 bit support performance enhancement".

Perhaps it worth to solve this before any beta realease ?


>One function that still strikes me is fluid_synth_process()..

Sorry, i never used this function, but i will take a look.


> Message du 26/04/18 14:42
> De : "Tom M." <address@hidden>
> A : address@hidden
> Copie à :
> Objet : [fluid-dev] API design: fluid_synth_process()
> I thought to release a beta in the nearer future. But I would like to have the API ready before I do so. One function that still strikes me is fluid_synth_process() [1]. It's lacking a real implementation for 15 years. If we dont get it right now, we'll never do, so we better discuss it.
> This function is used for pulling synthesized audio from the synth. It's said to become the "generic interface in future versions". Although its usage is discouraged as being still "experimental", it's already established due to being required for the callback function of new_fluid_audio_driver2() [2].
> Despite the fact that this function ignores two of its arguments, I just dont know how to properly tell it which channels to map to which output buffers. I'm thinking here in the scope of a "future release" that might support surround audio and rendering effects of each midi channel to separate stereo / surround buffers.
> Does anybody have an idea how to deal with this function (preferably without changing its signature)? Any idea of how those two ignored arguments could be used? Would welcome any thoughts (esp. from a user perspective).
> Tom
> [1]: http://www.fluidsynth.org/api/synth_8h.html#a1ac90e2732aa652679305f78cbd66670
> [2]: http://www.fluidsynth.org/api/audio_8h.html#a3959d8add1dea97e507a5ea2c802c0bc
> _______________________________________________
> fluid-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]