james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > 0) Cheesetracker must be better than most trackers in terms of > > sound quality. > > It works at the samplerate of Jack - 44100 in my case. Its not a sample rate issue at all. In order to play a sample at different pitches, a tracker needs to do what is effectively sample rate conversion. Every tracker I've ever looked at used linear interpolation for sample rate conversion and linear interpolation is nowhere near the best way to do it, but it is cheap in terms of CPU resources. The linear interpolation will cause some notes to sound more grainy than others. > All of this isn't as much of a problem as you might think. > Admittedly, using samples for everything has drawbacks - you can't > move too far away from the original pitch before there are noticable > effects, but just as you would with a soundfont, you just have > multi-sample instruments. Ever thought of writing a tutorial on how to do music in Cheestracker :-). Erik -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ "Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling to get out." -- Bjarne Stroustrup
