Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] interesting LADSPA-relevant post on vst-plugins
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Apr 18 2002 - 14:10:11 EEST
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 09:22:07 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> For what it's worth, many plugs already have internal parameters for soft
> bypass (all Powered Plug-Ins have one or more bypass params that provide
> both glitch-free bypass and a DSP load reduction), and I believe this is a
> better approach because it supports automation and remote control surfaces
> better. For this reason, I see no reason to support setBypass unless it
> simply maps directly onto a bypass parameter. A more consistent interface
I agree with this entirely...
> would be to add a getBypassParamId() call to return the parameter ID for
> the bypass parameter, and use the standard get/setParameter() interface to
> control it.
...but as we're not using vst, we can simply have a well known port name.
I nominate "bypass".
votes++;
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Apr 18 2002 - 13:56:28 EEST