From the original SynthMaker forum (2004–2014), with its members’ names and dates.
dasdeck ·
in my n.Slice thingy, you can selct the part to edit by midi key. so i redraw the whole GUI at key press (i used a tthread between midi in and redraw, else there would be horrible glitching). i nsynthmaker environment it workl flawlessly, but as exported vst, glitch hell again. seems like the gui redraw even moves the start point of the slices. i connected the midi to poly thing before the midi graphic thing, midi connection order seems to play a role.
so is GUI slower in vst (Energy XT is the host)?
cheers
D3CK
infuzion ·
Might be since your computer is dealing with both the host & the VSTi at the same time?
I recommend looking at your code to see where you can shrink it, esp SM's GUI componants tend to be leaning more on easier to read & flexable vs pure efficency.
overhishead ·
i was testing angular momentums table synth in acid and ableton and noticed the faders near the top would not move in real time. you click and drag and nothing happens until you let go, at which time you realize the fader has moved much further than you intended.
complex synths such as arturia's seem to function very smoothly and boast precise sequencing capabilities, as well as dozens spaghetti like patch cords that are fully animated with little to no graphical lag.
is synthmaker more of a hobbyist tool, or with expert coding, can synthmaker be used to create highly optimised and top of the line professional quality instruments?
i mean, in a quality that can equal a synthesizer such as steinberg's d'kota or arturia's moog modular?
i guess i am a little afraid that synthmaker's coding is clunky and a tad needy in the way of cpu resources.
thank you
qnine ·
overhishead wrote: is synthmaker more of a hobbyist tool, or with expert coding, can synthmaker be used to create highly optimised and top of the line professional quality instruments?
IMO SM can be used to create professional sounding and looking instruments and effects. SM is also very useful for prototyping as it provides a quick and easy way to test thing like filters, oscillators, etc... without having to deal with all the boilerplate stuff you would have to deal with if you were working in C++ or some other language, for example, you can simply write some filter code, then just pull in an osc, envelope, midi in, and audio out from the toolbox, link them together and then you can test your filter code.
SM is also useful as a learning tool, I've only been using SM for just over a month now and I've learned more in this past month about dsp than I have in the last year that I've spent doing dsp research, for the simple reason that SM provides a quick and easy way to test ideas and algorithms.
overhishead wrote: i guess i am a little afraid that synthmaker's coding is clunky and a tad needy in the way of cpu resources.
It depends how you implement your code, SM provides a code component which generates assembler code. The generated assembler code can then be copied into an assembler component and optimized further if you wish. Although for simple stuff the code component generates code that is quite fast anyway, so you don't need to optimize the generated assembler unless you really want to squeeze every last cpu cycle you can out of the code. If you're thinking that this all seems like it would take a long time to do, it would take longer in C/C++. I've been programming for over 10 years and I've never been able to put something together in C as quickly as I can with SM.
Dave
Wrote something here? To have a post removed or your name hidden, write to [email protected].
SynthMaker