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

[Matthias W. <mat...@in...>]

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:13:16PM +0000, Steve Harris wrote:
> 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>

In order to provide the whole features that a sample format provides, we
have to represent the parameters in linuxsampler. But that means we
allready have a "grand unified sample" system.

We could write a set of specialized functions that handle special
features of a sample format. When a sample set of a certain sample
format is used, the right set of functions are put together while
loading the samples ( via function pointers, process lists, ... ).

matthias