Hans;<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I think both may happen (by my testing): the CPU load may increase to the point that it is the delays that causes the crash, but also before.<div class="im">
</div></blockquote><div><br>Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if that were true.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Yes, or having fewer generators, and letting the keys circulate assignment around them, which may have the same effect (which, when I read ahead, see that you are mentioning, too.<div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br>
Yes, that would come down to voice cycling as well. There are a lot of possible strategies for that, depending on taste and how complex you are willing to get as well as how sensitive you are to inappropriate voice-stealing.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">In the case of MIDI, it may be necessary, due to a limited number of channels. Scala uses complex algorithms for that.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I don't think either MIDI or Scala affects this matter all that much; as I see it the core of the issue is that CPU resources are limited so we need to conserve them. MIDI could still generate 128 * 16 concurrent notes if you really wanted to and such amounts of voices will cause issues in any realistic and practical system. <br>
</div></div><br>I may be misunderstanding your comment here.<br><br>Kas.<br>