[directmusic] Re: Audiopath question
- From: "Todor Fay" <todor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <directmusic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 22:27:16 -0700
Yes, a shared audiopath does not use any additional CPU if nothing is
playing in it. When something plays, the only additional CPU is the
software synth rendering each note.
The CPU overhead of the buffer is the overhead to stream audio data and
processing through any effects in the buffers (for example the reverb.)
The disadvantage of a shared path is you end up sharing any changes you
apply to the buffers. For example, if you call SetFrequency() on the
buffer, it will shift the pitch of all audiopaths sharing that one
buffer. Likewise, changing a DMO setting, for example Reverb.
I hope this helps,
Todor
-----Original Message-----
From: directmusic-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:directmusic-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vytautas
Leonavicius
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 7:55 AM
To: directmusic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [directmusic] Re: Audiopath question
> Shared + Reverb use the same DirectSound buffers, so you can use as
many
> of them as you like and not even bother with deactivating!
Why? These audiopaths will not be using CPU while active? Yes I know
that
they share same buffer, but buffer is just final stage, as I understand
those audiopaths will continue sending messages.
So it looks like shared + reverb is best choice for non-3D audiopaths?
Does
it have some disadvantages in compare with Dynamic audiopath?
Thank you!
Vytautas
Other related posts:
