On Tue, 31 May, 2005 at 07:14AM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo spake thus: > 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. Yup. Cheesetacker has a choice of: Raw, FM, Cosine, Linear and Cubic. > 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 :-). Yes. I think I might when I have some time. In the meantime, theres always united-trackers.com > Erik -- "I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you." (By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
