Re: [linux-audio-dev] ardour, LADSPA, a marriage

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

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ardour, LADSPA, a marriage
From: David Olofson (david_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Fri Nov 17 2000 - 09:39:46 EET


On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Tommi Ilmonen wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
>
> > >The reason I asked is because, while many open projects rally around a
> > >single program, lad looks to me like a collection of individuals
> > >developing and sharing their personal knowledge base regarding digital
> > >audio through the process of developing their own apps. Ardour clearly
> > >has the potential to unify the efforts of developers aiming for a
> > >complete linux daw.
> >
> > I hope so. I try to always be open to the ideas and contributions of
> > others. As yet, however, Kai is the only other person operating in
> > this universe, and his goals and design space are pretty different
> > from mine. There's been lots of discussions of things that probably
> > *should* be a part of Ardour, but very little or no code. Thats OK
> > - I'll just keep waking up bleary-eyed but razzed with excitement.
>
> The work I have done with Mustajuuri has a bit different basic philosophy.
> The role of a plugin is rather different from VST/ProTools -approach.
>
> I think there should not be "an application", but plugins that can be
> chained together.

I *really* like that idea! It's kind of the ultimate vision of what
MuCoS (MAIA?) plugins could be used for - that's one reason why the
API is so incredibly hard to get together. (Or rather; I'm trying to
figure out how to fit all the functionality in without the API making
3D graphics programming look trivial. ;-)

[...]

> > Ardour really doesn't have to care about the EDL file format. Thats
> > the easy part (especially when people like timevista supply a
> > bison/flex parser for you :). The hard part is actually implementing
> > what the EDL describes. I have, oh, 80% of that in place, but as yet,
>
> This is another reason to not make applications so very stand-alone. If
> there is a strange file format there should be a plugin that is the source
> of the format and the plugin should be able to automatically handle the
> files - no need to parse information generated by other apps.

Net builders, automation sequencers and file loader plugins...?

> Now that I have talked about modularity I must confess people often hype
> the idea. Modularity tends to be bad for usability. Holistic (or
> monolithic) design gives the possibility to integrate all features to a
> coherent packet. Or rather, modular systems *tend* to be difficult to use.

Hmm... Yes. How about monolithic user interfaces for modular engines?
(That is, do the usual monolith, but rip usable parts of the engine
out in the form of plugins, so that others can use them.)

//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 -'


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Nov 17 2000 - 13:40:25 EET