Re: [boost] Library suggestion - audio IO
On Jun 16, 2011 2:29 PM, "Philip Bennefall" <philip@blastbay.com> wrote:
Hi all,
My name is Philip Bennefall, and I am very new to Boost. I have only been
learning the basics of it over the last few weeks but am highly impressed with its performance thus far. so a big thanks to the Boost developers for their excellent efforts!
I was wondering whether the discussion of a portable audio I/O library as
part of Boost has ever come up? I would very much like to see a library that handles streaming audio, input and output, in a cross platform way.
Any thoughts on this?
Kind regards,
Philip Bennefall P.S. I do hope that this is the right list to post this question on.
Apologies if it should have been directed to Boost users instead.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
If you're talking about standardizing algorithms and data structures for manipulating audio data (like Boost.Gil, but for audio data), then I second your suggestion. However, it sounds to me like you suggesting a library to abstract away the details of dealing with audio hardware. That would be a nightmare to maintain and it would bloat the heck out of Boost, so I vote no for that. Greg
Hi Greg, I feel personally that both of these things may be quite useful. If compiled as a separate library there would be no bloating for existing Boost users, considering the extreme modularity that Boost already enjoys. It is exactly because of the fact that different audio hardware abstractions are so hard to do portably, that I am suggesting it. It might save months of work for developers looking to add cross platform audio to their application and who are already using Boost. Kind regards, Philip Bennefall ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Rubino" <bibil.thaysose@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Library suggestion - audio IO On Jun 16, 2011 2:29 PM, "Philip Bennefall" <philip@blastbay.com> wrote:
Hi all,
My name is Philip Bennefall, and I am very new to Boost. I have only been
learning the basics of it over the last few weeks but am highly impressed with its performance thus far. so a big thanks to the Boost developers for their excellent efforts!
I was wondering whether the discussion of a portable audio I/O library as
part of Boost has ever come up? I would very much like to see a library that handles streaming audio, input and output, in a cross platform way.
Any thoughts on this?
Kind regards,
Philip Bennefall P.S. I do hope that this is the right list to post this question on.
Apologies if it should have been directed to Boost users instead.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
If you're talking about standardizing algorithms and data structures for manipulating audio data (like Boost.Gil, but for audio data), then I second your suggestion. However, it sounds to me like you suggesting a library to abstract away the details of dealing with audio hardware. That would be a nightmare to maintain and it would bloat the heck out of Boost, so I vote no for that. Greg _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
"Greg Rubino" <bibil.thaysose@gmail.com> wrote in message news:BANLkTinqEf4WGMEzhmFkmo5iPvDCGHc6sQ@mail.gmail.com...
If you're talking about standardizing algorithms and data structures for manipulating audio data (like Boost.Gil, but for audio data), then I second your suggestion.
However, it sounds to me like you suggesting a library to abstract away the details of dealing with audio hardware. That would be a nightmare to maintain and it would bloat the heck out of Boost, so I vote no for that.
There are three layers actually. Algorithms (as GIL), file IO (as GIL.IO) and device/audio IO. I personally have a need for all of those. It can be easily argued that the first two do fit into Boost (as audio counterparts of GIL). As for the third 'layer' it need not be such a nightmare as one might think. It wouldn't involve supporting individual hardware devices rather OS API's (such as DirectSound, CoreAudio) which would not be that 'alien' to Boost. If we could have a GUI ('video presentation') library in Boost, why not an 'audio presentation'..? -- "What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate." Neil Postman
Domagoj Saric There are three layers actually. Algorithms (as GIL), file IO (as GIL.IO) and device/audio IO. I personally have a need for all of those. It can be easily argued that the first two do fit into Boost (as audio counterparts of GIL). As for the third 'layer' it need not be such a nightmare as one might think. It wouldn't involve supporting individual hardware devices rather OS API's (such as DirectSound, CoreAudio) which would not be that 'alien' to Boost. If we could have a GUI ('video presentation') library in Boost, why not an 'audio presentation'..?
Oh, I'm not arguing for or against here. But as I understand things, Boost is mere an umbrella organization of a set of individually maintained libraries, though most of them do not materialize from a joint Boost community effort (tools and tool chains do to some extent). They evolve elsewhere by experts in the domain of the library, and then proposed, reviewed and possibly included into Boost. That said, of course a team of Audio developers could form on the Boost mail list, and it wasn't my intent to discourage anything like that. But, I do have some experience as a user of commercial audio packages, and this seems IMHO as a very big project to manage. That's why I suggested to look at alternatives, so one doesn't need to start from zero. Cheers, - Christian
participants (4)
-
Christian Holmquist -
Domagoj Saric -
Greg Rubino -
Philip Bennefall