On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 11:56 +0200, Norbert Schnell wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2005, at 9:15, Toby wrote:
> > As already reported, such an algorithm needs to take into account the
> > current position in the volume envelope. The quietest voice might
> > be a
> > note that has not started climbing the att
On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 12:02 +0200, Tim Goetze wrote:
> thinking about this (early morning thoughts by the coffee mug after a
> lng night) i'd say the factor to weigh could be 'number of voices
> already in use by the same channel the new voice is on' - cutting off
> a note played on the same
On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 09:15 +0200, Toby wrote:
> Josh Green wrote:
> > quietest// Quietest voice gets killed
>
> As already reported, such an algorithm needs to take into account the
> current position in the volume envelope. The quietest voice might be a
> note that has not started climbing
[Josh Green]
>Currently the channel is indeed taken into account, but the somewhat
>opposite effect is implemented. A drum channel instrument has a higher
>priority than other channels when it comes to selecting a voice to kill.
>Seems a bit wrong, since a rapid series of percussion with long deca
On 14 Oct 2005, at 5:40, Josh Green wrote:
Proposed changes (some stuff still needs to be researched):
- Improve volume level rating (keep track of voice levels?)
- Improve voice age rating (ticks and/or noteID)
- Add settings for selecting voice stealing presets and setting custom
weighted ratin
Josh Green wrote:
> quietest // Quietest voice gets killed
As already reported, such an algorithm needs to take into account the
current position in the volume envelope. The quietest voice might be a
note that has not started climbing the attack slope yet; we don't want
to kill such a note.
