Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Linux Audio plugin API's: where are we ?
From: Benno Senoner (sbenno_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Thu Apr 06 2000 - 21:03:58 EEST
On Thu, 06 Apr 2000, Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
>
> This kind of attitude, which I hear as "plugin API X is technically
> superior to plugin API Y, so we're sticking with it", is fine if you
> *all* want to care about is the technical superiority of your
> code. Most of the time, that *is* all I want to care about. But some
> of the time, I want to be able to use other cool stuff *without*
> having to reimplement it myself. And if every audio project on Linux
> has developers who are convinced (and perhaps rightly so) that their
> particular internal design is superior to a common denominator, then
> this ability to share other people's work without a lot of work on my
> part is never going to happen.
>
> I think that this would be sad.
>
I can only agree here,
LADSPA1.0 is a good base to start and covers most of the non-event stuff,
that means you can implement your effect processor plugin using this API,
I see no disadvantage when comparing LADSPA 1.0 to VST1.0.
Look at how many great VST1.0 plugins exist right now.
Halls, DeEssers, EQs, filters, dynamic processors, psychoacoustic enhancers,
analog tape simulators ( Steinbergs Magneto) etc.
ALL these plugs can be implemented using the LADSPA 1.0 API.
The only feature which LADSPA 1.0 is lacking is program banks,
but that can be implemented by the host.
Although I am a perfectionist, I am happy that LADSPA 1.0 is out,
and future MuCos hosts will have close to ZERO additional work to do in order
to host LADSPA 1.0 plugins.
Therefore I agree that everyone which has an app hosting audio plugins, should
add LADSPA plugin support, plus all opensource plugins (so far technically
possible) should be ported to LADSPA so that other applications can reuse them.
( a website with all available LADSPA plugins would be cool)
Benno.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Apr 06 2000 - 21:36:24 EEST