From alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz  Wed Feb 24 21:07:53 1999
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [209.152.193.4])
	by marvin.jcu.cz (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA13045
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:07:31 +0100
Received: from someip.ppp.op.net (d-bm3-1b.ppp.op.net [209.152.194.91]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.18 $) with ESMTP id PAA07486 for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:04:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199902242004.PAA07486@renoir.op.net>
To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Subject: Re: Instrument abstract layer 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:02:22 +0100."
             <9902241700.AA03333@servww1.ww.uni-erlangen.de> 
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:03:58 -0500
From: Paul Barton-Davis <pbd@op.net>
Reply-To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Sender: alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz
Precedence: list

is there a good reason for not using the same kind of model that
several synths do ? Components:

	SAMPLES - take up memory
	PATCHES - modulations of samples
	INSTRUMENTS - 1 or more patches combined
	PROGRAMS - instruments selected based on:
	               (1) note number and/or
		       (2) on velocity and/or
		       (3) other

another model:

	SAMPLES - take up memory, 
	MULTISAMPLES - aliases for samples accessed via note number
	PATCHES - modulations of multisamples
	INSTRUMENTS - as above
	PROGRAMS as above		     

I'm not sure I've explained this clearly, but the idea works well for
both my WaveFront card, my Kawai K5000S and several other devices I
have or have written.

--p


