Re: [Linuxsampler-devel] Suupporting various sample library formats and engines

[Steve H. <S.W...@ec...>]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:03:36 +1000, [3] wrote:
> >So, I think it is better to have seperate sub-engines that communicate
> >with the main engine at a high level (eg. to the sub-engine: "Here is a
> >bunch of event data ...", from the sub-engine: "I want 8 outputs", "here
> >is a lump of audio data ...").

> >The alternative would be to normalise all the sample formats into one,
> >grand unified sample format and just handle that (I believe that is how
> >gigasampler works?).

Of course, the counter argument too all this is that writing a full
sampler engine for every format we want to support fully sucks, no-one
probably needs all that functionlaity anyway, and we should just write
translators ont a common, comprehensive format and live with the slight
conversion loss. <shrug>

- Steve