#10825 - DekuTree64 - Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:03 am
Now that I'm done with my compo entry, I'm plotting and planning on yet another sound mixer. I've been playing with them for a long time now and I've got some nice ideas for a new one, but I haven't decided what to and not to do, so I thought I'd see what other people would like.
In all cases, it could do any number of channels, but I'll have to cut the volume levels to where the mixed samples fit in 16 bits, so for example, 16 channels would only allow for 16 vol levels, since 255 * 16chns * 16volLvls = 65280, so it fits. I'll also have to cut the final mix volume, because clipping isn't really practical, but I could probably get away with allowing it to run over some with 8 or more channels, since it'd be pretty unlikely to get all of them hitting the maximum volume at once.
The fastest I could do is a completely mono mixer, but I doubt anyone would want that. Then for a small speed decrease (about 100-200 cycles/frame) I could do hard stereo, which also means half the number of channels per side, so more volume levels/final volume. Then for a larger speed decrease (about 2 cycles/sample/channel), I could do full stereo, and therefore some nice panning envelopes and stuff.
Which brings me to the music player. MOD, S3M, XM, or IT? MOD is easy, but a bit limiting. Still good though. S3M is pretty much out cause if I was gonna do more than MOD, I'd like to have envelopes. IT is good, but the instrument files take up a lot of space. XM seems like the best since it's not too complicated, but has envelopes/variable frequency, so I'll probably go with it. Or would it be worth the extra file size for IT? I could probably compress the sample maps to take less space, but then they'd have to be decompressed to RAM to be played, so that's another minus.
So I'm leaning toward hard stereo and XM. Sound good? Does anyone even care^_^?
_________________
___________
The best optimization is to do nothing at all.
Therefore a fully optimized program doesn't exist.
-Deku
In all cases, it could do any number of channels, but I'll have to cut the volume levels to where the mixed samples fit in 16 bits, so for example, 16 channels would only allow for 16 vol levels, since 255 * 16chns * 16volLvls = 65280, so it fits. I'll also have to cut the final mix volume, because clipping isn't really practical, but I could probably get away with allowing it to run over some with 8 or more channels, since it'd be pretty unlikely to get all of them hitting the maximum volume at once.
The fastest I could do is a completely mono mixer, but I doubt anyone would want that. Then for a small speed decrease (about 100-200 cycles/frame) I could do hard stereo, which also means half the number of channels per side, so more volume levels/final volume. Then for a larger speed decrease (about 2 cycles/sample/channel), I could do full stereo, and therefore some nice panning envelopes and stuff.
Which brings me to the music player. MOD, S3M, XM, or IT? MOD is easy, but a bit limiting. Still good though. S3M is pretty much out cause if I was gonna do more than MOD, I'd like to have envelopes. IT is good, but the instrument files take up a lot of space. XM seems like the best since it's not too complicated, but has envelopes/variable frequency, so I'll probably go with it. Or would it be worth the extra file size for IT? I could probably compress the sample maps to take less space, but then they'd have to be decompressed to RAM to be played, so that's another minus.
So I'm leaning toward hard stereo and XM. Sound good? Does anyone even care^_^?
_________________
___________
The best optimization is to do nothing at all.
Therefore a fully optimized program doesn't exist.
-Deku