Quote:
Originally Posted by no9
|
It's actually
Roondar, not Roodnar
Anyway, the numbers posted are indeed accurate for 11KHz fixed-sample rate mixing @4 channels mixed. However, I think Samurai_Crow was probably referring to non-fixed sample rate mixing, which is indeed a whole lot more expensive CPU wise.
I've been considering the whole issue more and I do by now agree with you that this kind of fixed-rate mixing might actually be useful for some parts of music, as long as you can live with the compromises that are part of this. The question is, can musicians live with them?
For reference, here's a list of compromises I see at the moment (maybe I missed a few):
- Support for effects/commands/etc would be very limited using this mixer: volume changes would affect all mixed channels at the same time, other alterations to the sample being played have a maximum of roughly one change per frame (at default settings)
- Sample rate is fixed and performance cost is tied directly to sample rate chosen
- Mixing 4 channels means the volume of the mixed channel is lower than the non-mixed channels
Obviously, these compromises don't apply to the three standard hardware channels you'd still have access to.