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 - 18:50:24 EET
>> 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.
>
>Why is this bad? My understanding of the LADSPA callbacks was that you
>were only intented to implement run_adding if you could do so with some
>performance gain over the host doing it. Is there a good reason to
>implement it anyway?
freeverb -> delay -> eq
i can implement this as a chain in 2 ways (hopefully, the nomenclature
is obvious):
input->freeverb_R->out1
out1->delay_R->out2
out2->eq_R->output
input->freeverb_RA->delay_RA->eq_R->output
now, for some plugins, this can be a little confusing: freeverb, for
example, already has its own "wet/dry" control, which would make this
all pretty bizarre. this can be solved:
input->freeverb_R->delay_RA->eq_R->output
anyway, in the first case, we have N-1 extra data copies, and in the
others we have none.
when i'm dealing with 64 tracks of data from the disk, each going
through 3 or more plugins, i know which design I want to use :)
or am i, again, missing the boat here ?
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Nov 06 2000 - 19:38:03 EET