[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
stereo should be enough for anyone?
From: |
Niklas Wallen |
Subject: |
stereo should be enough for anyone? |
Date: |
Tue Apr 9 17:45:02 2002 |
Hey
I was playing around and changed the mono/stereo limit to OX_MAX_BUS_WIDTH
(6 or 8 seems enough) channels using a simple mapping for connections.
I'd like to hear your opinion about it..
lin,rin,lout,rout in machine and lbuf,rbuf in mixer became pointer arrays like
samp *in[OX_MAX_BUS_WIDTH].
The mapping is stored in the input struct as an array of channel numbers.
The number of channels used for a connection is determined by the number
of input channels of the destination machine, so input on channel k comes
from output channel input.channels[k]. To receive nothing on a channel,
use the value OX_CHANNEL_NONE.
Yeah, I admit a better name should be used since 'channel' belongs to
another concept. Anyone with better imagination?
A machine with 4 input channels for two stereo inputs could use mappings like
[0,1,x,x] for one input machine and [x,x,0,1] for the other.
A connection from a mono machine to a stereo machine could have a mapping
of [0, 0].
Stereo to mono can only be either [0] or [1] but I'm thinking about a way
to specify several channels at once. Would it be sufficient to have a
'stereo bit' to simply mix channels k and k+1? A mixer machine could always
solve the more general problem of n to 1 mappings.
How will panning work with this scheme?
A gain for each channel?
Is this interesting or are you all satisfied with stereo?
(I'm gonna do it anyway, hehe)
--
Niklas W
- stereo should be enough for anyone?,
Niklas Wallen <=