Fyi, lmms let's you freeze tracks, which sounds like what you are
explaining.
On Apr 5, 2010 2:05 PM, "Tommy Raz" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jonathan,
Problem with that line of thought is not everyone runs LMMS on today's
system.
LMMS runs fairly well on my 1998 machine. I hope trade-offs between
precision
and performance can be made optional, as has been done so far in many ways.
LMMS does so much in real-time that it is very sensitive to performance.
Even
with a new system, I can see myself taking it to the limit on how many
tracks
and effects I can pile onto it.
Allowing a CPU/cache hit for greater precision would not be such an issue if
LMMS was less real-time sensitive. For example, imagine if there was a
feature
to render selected tracks to a new audio track (muting the original ones) it
would allow a workflow to get around hitting the CPU wall. Tweeking gets a
bit
complicated, as one would delete rendered track, unmute source tracks,
tweek,
and re-render to new audio track. But that would allow users to do huge
projects. I remember using this feature often when I used to write with
Mackie
Tracktion.
--Tommy
From: Jonathan Aquilina <[email protected]>
>toby with the processing power we have now a days it shouldnt hit
>performance badly. especially si...
>> ...Changing internal processing sample format to
>> double definitely would be nice if it does not introduce performance
>> regressions (whichI fear ...
>> efficiency)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel®...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
