Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Pragmatic comparison of approaches to audio engine
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Tue May 15 2001 - 16:22:55 EEST
>About approaches: I think that the API need to be designed having in
>mind both approaches. It have to be designed leaving the approach as an
>implementation detail, I know that this may be more difficult but to
>fail here means to prejudice near future possibilities.
Abramo, I'd like to ask that you look carefully at the LADSPA
API. Karl has made the observation that we could almost support
everything that has been spoken about here with LADSPA. Jim and myself
have noted that there are two problems with LADSPA 1.0 for this:
* no dynamic changes in the number of inputs and outputs
that a plugin is, which is no good for complex plugins
* all ports are float data; some plugins need other types
(strings being the most obvious example)
When I look at LADSPA, I don't see any parts of it that I can map onto
any part of the ALSA API. You've been a good advocate of using some
API within ALSA, and I'd like you comment on:
1) if you don't think that a LADSPA-like API is usable, why not?
2) if you think it is, which part of ALSA, if any, corresponds to LADSPA?
And just as a reminder: if you look at the available VST FX and
instruments, its hard to argue that there are any kind of audio
"components" that can't be implemented with VST; LADSPA is essentially
VST 1.0 done slightly "cleaner".
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue May 15 2001 - 16:46:35 EEST