Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ecamegapedal catches up
From: Kai Vehmanen (kai.vehmanen_AT_wakkanet.fi)
Date: Fri Nov 30 2001 - 22:53:30 EET
Oops, a little late response this time...
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Taybin Rutkin wrote:
>> PS Reasons for using standard ecasound syntax instead of xml in
>> the preset files are a) consistency (-> man ecasound(1)), and
>> b) to avoid dependency to a xml-parser library (main ecasound
>> only requires libc and libstdc++).
> I should've responded sooner, but I really think it would be better if you
> used a cross-app format for LADSPA presets. One of the best reasons for
> using presets is that LADSPA authors can distribute them with their
> plugin. They can't do this if there are two competing formats.
This shouldn't be a problem. Ecasound's preset files are not just presets,
but actually descriptions of whole plugin networks (multi-operator,
multi-chain w/ controllers). So they aren't very useful to other apps
(without linking to or duplicating libecasound).
On the other hand it should be relatively easy to add support for a common
xml-based LADSPA-preset format outside libecasound (for instance a python
script for converting from LADSPA-xml_preset -> ecasound preset). Just as
long we have a format that everyone agrees to use.
Are there other competing formats or is Ardour's preset format the one to
use? How about other LADSPA hosts; snd, GLAME, gdam, etc - do you support
LADSPA-presets?
-- http://www.eca.cx Audio software for Linux!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Nov 30 2001 - 22:50:49 EET