Hi, Marcus
>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. Yes the idea is very useful as far this dedicaced API remains as simple as possible. The possibility of switching the reverb engine and chorus engine needs a particular care. Both are part of the SoundFont specifications. For example the reverb is necessary to emulate the natural reverberation of any acoustic instrument. For this reason all the output of synthetized voices instruments are always connected to the only one input of the reverb. In other words the reverb unit is common for all instruments (ie all MIDI channels) . The same is true for the chorus unit. That means that any Chorus/Reverb unit candIdate must exposes the basic API interface (i.e the current API) expected by FluidSynth. >So we basically define an effect descriptor structure that each effect >implementation can fill. At synth startup, users can choose one of the >available effect implementations. A few would be hardcoded into FluidSynth, >others could be registered via a new FluidSynth API. That seems simple. However Reverb and Chorus consumes memory, so for small embedded system it will be necessary that only the reverb/chorus in use are loaded . So this system must uses the RTL API (run time loading library) of the OS concerned. These API aren't compicated (around 3 functions maximum). Again we fall into the problem of OS dependency but it is necessary. > Just my 2 cents. But I really think something like this (or another idea to create a stable API) should done before adding another reverb type to FluidSynth. Yes, really a useful idea. Regards jjc > Message du 23/10/17 00:38 > De : "Marcus Weseloh" > A : "FluidSynth mailing list" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [fluid-dev] Trying another reverb ? > > Hi again, > 2017-10-22 21:09 GMT+02:00 Marcus Weseloh : > 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[1], only less generic and more specific to FluidSynth. Here is a quick draft of the idea: https://gist.github.com/mawe42/20a473ccdee83c364fcc126962656abb > > So we basically define an effect descriptor structure that each effect implementation can fill. At synth startup, users can choose one of the available effect implementations. A few would be hardcoded into FluidSynth, others could be registered via a new FluidSynth API. > > Just my 2 cents. But I really think something like this (or another idea to create a stable API) should done before adding another reverb type to FluidSynth. As Kent Beck puts it: "for each desired change, make the change easy (warning: this may be hard), then make the easy change" . > Cheers, > Marcus _______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
_______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
