Subject: [linux-audio-dev] pbd's votes on LADSPA
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Sun Mar 26 2000 - 20:12:19 EEST
I vote (multiple times, if its allowed) for runAdding, precisely for
the reason David Olofson mentioned: in the majority of situations,
plugins will have their outputs connected to a bus, and its silly to
require the host to remix all their output streams into the "real
bus".
I will *not* use LADSPA if it adopts value ranges that do match those
of the underlying data type. The [-1,+1] idea is abhorent to me, if
only for the reason that it *guarantees* that we can't satisfy in-bits
= out-bits.
I agree with Karl about the model being a recompile to adopt a
different data type.
I don't think that Benno or David's suggestions are at all
appropriate. The reason VST has been so successful (and it has been
phenomenally so) is that *all* plugins work with *all* hosts (bar a
few minor problems with various non-Steinberg hosts not correctly
implementing certain outlying parts of the API). To start with an API
that a priori allows for plugins that are incompatible with certain
hosts is, IMHO, an error of catastrophic proportions.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Mar 26 2000 - 20:47:06 EEST