Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add stereo glut engine #1

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add stereo glut engine #1

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sixolet
Copy link

@sixolet sixolet commented Oct 24, 2022

This is an alternate engine, much like original Glut but stereo.

I left it as a separate engine because it does probably use twice the CPU, so people who don't need stereo don't have to have it.

@artfwo
Copy link
Owner

artfwo commented Dec 4, 2022

Hey, thanks for the PR!

Is it possible to load and play mono samples with StereoGlut? To merge the change, I would prefer having the possibility of both playing mono and stereo samples with the same engine.

Maybe with an extra argument in the synth (nchannels) that's being set at sample loading time the engine could be modified to play both stereo and mono samples without having to switch, wdyt?

@sixolet
Copy link
Author

sixolet commented Dec 4, 2022 via email

@artfwo
Copy link
Owner

artfwo commented Dec 4, 2022

Is the stereo version able to play all the voices together without hitting the CPU limit? If yes, I don't mind converting mono samples to stereo in the original engine.

Alternatively, the read command could be modified to rebuild synths dynamically (check Mass producing SynthDefs tutorial for an example) or a conditional UGen could be used to choose the stereo signal path during synth runtime.

@sixolet
Copy link
Author

sixolet commented Dec 4, 2022 via email

@sixolet
Copy link
Author

sixolet commented Dec 4, 2022 via email

@artfwo
Copy link
Owner

artfwo commented Dec 4, 2022

Yeah, either way is fine with me. The stereo synths built next to mono versions might be even a cleaner solution. So please go ahead with whichever way you prefer if you'd like to resolve the issue in this repo 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants