New name for "Mixer" class

[JohannesLorenz]

The reorg proposes to rename FX-Mixer -> Mixer, which requires us to find a new name for Mixer.

Which name should we take? Or should we keep the current name?

Note: This is a discussion, so feel free to add proposals or upvote existing ones.

[JohannesLorenz]

Keep the current name Mixer for Mixer (i.e. FX-Mixer can not be named Mixer).

[he29-net]

If the current Mixer handles low-level audio mixing, Mixer seems like a good, descriptive name for it, so I would not disregard this option right away.
I assume the incentive for renaming FX-Mixer is that it does not deal only with effects. Perhaps as an alternative, it could be renamed to something else that still reflects its higher-level nature and does not limit it to effects. Like SongMixer, or TrackMixer. Or name one Mixer and the other Blender, I don't know. Someone with more detailed knowledge about what exactly each of them does could possibly come up with some better suggestions.

[JohannesLorenz]

Audio

Because it runs the audio threads.

[PhysSong]

Something like AudioRenderEngine then? The key point is that Audio itself doesn't describe what it does well.

[JohannesLorenz]

That's too long to write. I'd prefer AudioEngine then. Do you want to add it as a voting option?

[PhysSong]

If you're talking about AudioEngine, yes.

[JohannesLorenz]

Go ahead 👍

[he29-net]

Or even AudioMixer, to keep its current (relatively well matching) descriptive name and make it more specific to distinguish it from the "generic top-level Mixer".

[JohannesLorenz]

Realtime

It contains the realtime threads and the parameters which should be owned by them.

[JohannesLorenz]

AudioEngine

Proposal from @PhysSong

[rdrpenguin04]

IMO, if FX Mixer goes to Mixer, and Mixer goes to AudioMixer, that could get confusing as to which is which. AudioEngine conveys that it's at a lower level.

[JohannesLorenz]

AudioEngine is the winner. We'll take this.

[JohannesLorenz]

AudioMixer

Proposal from @he29-net . It keeps its current (relatively well matching) descriptive name and make it more specific to distinguish it from the "generic top-level Mixer".

[Veratil]

Just to share the terminology from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixing_console

A mixing console is also known as an audio mixer,
 audio console, mixing desk, sound mixer, soundboard,
 or simply as board or mixer.

[Spekular]

I believe these terms would be more applicable for what we currently call the FX mixer, no? When it comes to that I'm very fond of the existing proposal to simply go with "Mixer".

[Veratil]

Yeah that's my oops. 😁

[Spekular]

RenderEngine / RenderManager

I haven't delved super deep into the file, but it seems to me that it deals with taking project data (play handles and such) and converting it to samples (/buffers filled with samples). "Rendering" seems appropriate to describe this, and there are references to "rendering" in the file already.

[rdrpenguin04]

That is true; the only thing I have against this is that rendering typically refers to video in an AV context, and it's entirely conceivable that a different UI would be using a low-level RenderEngine. Plus, if LMMS ever becomes some people's dream as a MultiMedia creation platform, that would be another opportunity for confusion.

I don't hate the idea, but I don't think it's the best name in a forward-thinking way.

[MaciejMalczyk]

What about "Mux"? Short and easy name which is connected with signals and signal routing.

[Rossmaxx]

Since this is done, I'm closing this discussion out.