Re: [Bluemusic-devel] More Mixer Musings

[Michael B. <got...@ya...>]

--- Steven Yi <ste...@gm...> wrote:

> ...
> I was beginning to think also that UDO's would have
> something like:
> 
> opcode echo
> 
> ain1, ain2, [list of values set from interface] xin
> 
> ...code...
> 
> xout aout1, aout2
> endop
> 
> So that we can reuse UDO's and send in parameters
> from the interface,
> but I think it could be a headache and that there
> won't be *THAT* many
> effects, and even if there were many, it wouldn't
> affect parsing too
> much.
> 

I'm not quite sure I follow. One can resuse
instruments, too, and send in interface parameters to
them via instrument params (p3, p4, etc.), so what's
the advantage (aside from the ability to set ksmps
separately)? And I wouldn't be too sure about people
not having too many effects. I like effects and plan
to use them liberally, if and when I get back into
csound.

> I am thinking that all effects though will be given
> autoassigned names
> with the original name added as a comment to the
> output, something
> like:
> 
> opcode bMixerEffect0 ; mixer effect: echo
> ...
> endop
> 
> this is to avoid collision of effects names, and may
> play a part later
> if we arm parameters for automation.
> 

Sounds smart.

Michael Bechard


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com