Fyi, lmms let's you freeze tracks, which sounds like what you are explaining.

On Apr 5, 2010 2:05 PM, "Tommy Raz" <> wrote:

Problem with that line of thought is not everyone runs LMMS on today's system.
LMMS runs fairly well on my 1998 machine.  I hope trade-offs between precision
and performance can be made optional, as has been done so far in many ways.

LMMS does so much in real-time that it is very sensitive to performance.  Even
with a new system, I can see myself taking it to the limit on how many tracks
and effects I can pile onto it.

Allowing a CPU/cache hit for greater precision would not be such an issue if
LMMS was less real-time sensitive.  For example, imagine if there was a feature
to render selected tracks to a new audio track (muting the original ones) it
would allow a workflow to get around hitting the CPU wall.  Tweeking gets a bit
complicated, as one would delete rendered track, unmute source tracks, tweek,
and re-render to new audio track.  But that would allow users to do huge
projects.  I remember using this feature often when I used to write with Mackie

From: Jonathan Aquilina <>

>toby with the processing power we have now a days it shouldnt hit
>performance badly. especially si...

>> ...Changing internal processing sample format to

>> double definitely would be nice if it does not introduce performance
>> regressions (whichI fear ...

>> efficiency)...

Download Intel&#174;...