Re: Re:Groove, – a suggestion

[Adam Wilson]

gseher wrote:

Quote:

Well, increasing the resolution of the sequencer could be achieved in at least two ways I can think of now, but one of them (the more promising one) is something I would really need to build a experiment for. The other one bases on the current model and seems very CPU heavy, but still worth validating.

What needs to be rewritten in the way the sequencer events are generated and put into the sequencer queue, and the way the sequencer queue is then played back.
There is a component of latency that I need to investigate an experiment. The OS values in the specs are good, but I need to see it running, and hear it play. Realistically, that looks more like a summer project rather than a quick fix.

Picking up some missed threads here. Stupid forum software silently logs me out after some time and I think nothing’s happening.

Anyway, I think I’d prefer to tackle the resolution problem with timestamping the outgoing midi events in a sorted queue, and have a high reso timer walk down the list to see what has to go out.

The sequencer code can then run at a much lower reso as long at it manages to correctly timestamp the midi data it queues.

Fun project! Definitelty not a quicky.