Re: [linux-audio-dev] extending LADSPA, it's not that easy ......

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] extending LADSPA, it's not that easy ......
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 15:55:31 EET


>Well, I have "simple" answers for all of those questions, and it's no
>big deal to implement it. However, if it's a part of the API all
>hosts and/or plugins *have* to deal with it one way or another, or
>we'll soon end up with lots of "classes" of LADSPA plugins, which
>won't run on host of all other classes, and/or won't work together
>with plugins of certain classes. Not very nice, especially not for
>the end-user.

we already have this. LADSPA allows a plugin to not implement
run_adding(). some hosts may have good reasons to not run such
plugins. as far as i could tell, most plugins in the CMT set (thanks,
richard!) don't implement run_adding(). not nice.

>Now, if we *really* want to implement this (rather than just hinting
>some audio ports as actually being audio rate control ports), the
>simplest way would be to decide on a single control sample rate,
>based on a fixed relation to the audio sample rate. This fixed rate
>should be somewhere between the two existing rates; the audio sample
>rate (about 32..96 kHz) and the control rate (300-3000 Hz, depending
>on how much overhead you can tolerate.)

bzzzt! csound experience alert! there is *no* single control rate that
works. thats why its configurable at run time, and thats why some
settings will totally break certain csound instruments and/or crucify
the performance of others.

--p


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Nov 06 2000 - 16:34:36 EET