Well, I would say that the decision has not yet been made. I am leaning
towards continuing to use C, but I don't feel that it has really been
very well weighed out yet. The biggest issue is once again, who is
willing to program on FluidSynth. I'm not completely convinced that C++
is necessarily
On Apr 20, 2007, at 8:36 PM, Josh Green wrote:
I think the main thing that FluidSynth lacks currently is simply
active development. The project has been barely limping along
since I took over the maintainer-ship. It could really use, new
ideas and a well thought out direction.
Yeah, I a
On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 12:29 +0300, Mihail Zenkov wrote:
> Why we hear it only in 16 bits?
>
FluidSynth currently only has support for 16 bit samples. Swami uses
the SoundFont loader API, which just currently doesn't have support for
other formats other than 16 bit. It would take some changes to
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 21:22 +0200, Miguel Lobo wrote:
> Ok, thanks. I don't know to which degree libInstPatch makes other
> instrument formats look like SoundFonts, but if the "abstract"
> libInstPatch instrument looks very different from a SoundFont's, kaing
> FluidSynth use it will be a big job
> - Other audio formats (floating point or 24 bit for example, new
> SoundFont 2.04 supports 24 bit, and now Swami/libInstPatch does too, but
> can only hear it in 16 bits!)
Why we hear it only in 16 bits?
> As for the question of platform. We have:
>
> A. Continue using C without any support
