That's good. A solo or featured instrument might use an expensive physical model, but cheaper methods for the backing instruments. Maybe some kind of namespace could be started now [orc-flute], [orc-cello] and so on. A coherent performance interface would be a great start, something simple akin to MIDI {/ducks}
Actually the structure isn't as important as the flexibility and documentation. One should be able to query an instrument with a [help( message and get a print out like
/string/position/ /string/unitweight/ /bow/pressure/
all with normalised scales in OSC style so you know what is addressable
Keep the same general interface and every time someone makes a nice instrument they can put it in the next available namespace slot like [orc-trombone-22], [orc-trombone-23]...
Andy
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:44:50 +0200 Nicolas Montgermont nicolas_montgermont@yahoo.fr wrote:
I don't know well the toolkit in question, but I think in a way to create a kind of orchestra, there should be at least two organised categories:
- one devoted to physically modeled instrument, that allows complex
controls but sounds sometimes weird and are heavy to compute.
- one oriented towards signal models that should be easier to compute
and control. or perhaps two categories only defined by the complexity of the synthesis. This way the user can choose regarding his needs and doesn't need to dig each time he wants to use an instrument.
+n
Andy Farnell a écrit :
That will be nice. For music I think a few more medium level objects like in Perrys toolkit, things like an efficient general purpose pipe model and bowed string model. We really should aim to have a kind of decent Pd orchestra. A lot of work for any one person, but together it could be done one instrument at a time.
-- Nicolas Montgermont http://nicomon.basseslumieres.org