Re: [Octal-dev] is a "gearlib" wanted/needed/possible/trivial?

[Steve Mosher]

On Sun, 14 May 2000, Dave O'Toole wrote:

> Hi luka. IIRC we had a discussion about this on #octal. I think a
> gearlib is a pretty good idea. If it's general enough (i.e. set to
> process buffers of type "samp" (an octal-project typedef) it could be
> used in apps besides the main Tracker--for instance, other apps in the
> Octal Project Audio Suite, of which the tracker (not decided on a final
> name yet) is one part. 

        Yummy, I like the sound of this.

> Yeah; on the other hand if people don't write machines because there's
> no agreement on what goes into gearlib we have a problem. :-) Not that I
> really think there's so much danger of that happening--but high-level
> tracking-oriented unit-generator systems are a relatively new field. We
> might want to let practice lead theory on this one. 

        I say we write machines, and anytime something is borrowed from
another machine, it's taken into consideration for the lib. That's pretty
much how I evolve my code, and I find it works alright.

        One lib that I half started on had a freq-counter, wave generator,
amplitude analyzer, mixer... fun stuff like that. Much of it was just
hacks though. Are there any good sources on dsp programming? Anyhow, I
imagine a lot of functions like these would be useful in more than one
machine (distortion correction and auto-amplifiers would both measure
amplitude, for example.)

-- 
"declare yourself to not be a terrorist, and follow the instructions for 
upgrade."
        -- Rob Tasjian, regarding a Netopia upgrade.