Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ardour, LADSPA, a marriage
From: David Olofson (david_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Mon Nov 13 2000 - 10:39:30 EET
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Paul Winkler wrote:
[...]
> > >i can see hints of a major redesign in the future ...
> >
> > ...if you plan on developing a monolithic software daw. You could
> > go modular, allowing ardour to stay as ardour. This approach would
> > require the identification of the main components of a hardware
> > studio, developing equivalent software modules, and developing a
> > standard communication protocol between modules.
>
> protocol... hmmm... MCOP? (I think that's the name of the protocol in
> aRts?)
The problem with most solutions mentioned in this thread: They result
in too much latency for serious real time use. This may or may not be
problematic to what some people are doing, but people who have used
ProTools, Paris and other hardware based solutions are expecting
latencies to be virtually zero for most practical matters, ie less
than 5 ms.
The only solution that works on any currently existing OS, except for
hard RT kernels, such as QNX, RTAI or RTL, is to run everything in a
single thread. Chains of processes are not possible with these kind of
latency requirements, so the only option for a modular system is a
host/plugin design, where the host application loads plugins as
libraries and executes them through direct calls from it's engine
thread. That is, LADSPA, VST, MuCoS, or whatever plugin API will be
more suitable and mature when it's time to hack the code.
//David
.- M u C o S -------------------------. .- David Olofson --------.
| A Free/Open Source | | Audio Hacker |
| Plugin and Integration Standard | | Linux Advocate |
| for | | Open Source Advocate |
| Professional and Consumer | | Singer |
| Multimedia | | Songwriter |
`-----> http://www.linuxdj.com/mucos -' `---> david_AT_linuxdj.com -'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Nov 13 2000 - 13:13:07 EET