Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA Specs ?
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_op.net)
Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 05:36:43 EEST
>> Well - LADSPA is as it is now, i.e. _S_imple. And I like it being that
>> way. Its use is limited to certain applications, but usually you can live
>> with that.
>
>I think it can be simple without being limited.
>
>Like the VST SDK, which is easy to use for a simple synth, but can also
>support stuff like surrond sound and offline processing if the plugin maker
>can handle it.
>
>Parameter envelope is handled in the DirectX SDK (and thus Cakewalk DXi) by
>a handfull of functions and structures. It's very easy to implement after
>you study the docs a little and can do amaizing things (like automating a
>filter cutoff in Sonar without all that stepping sound speciffic to discrete
>parameter values).
yes, but notice that the VST API doesn't provide explicit support for
envelopes yet it can still support equivalent automation. the same is
true of LADSPA as well, *given* the earlier discussed assumption that
its a plugin's job to interpolate when changes occur in the values of
its control ports.
LADSPA supports surround sound too, without getting attached to
particular versions of it (5.1, 6.1, ambisonics, etc. etc.). You will
know from recent discussions on vst-plugins that VST's handling of
surround has come in for some (helpful) criticism - the "label ports/pins
as being part of a speaker configuration" seems like a worthwhile
addition even for LADSPA ...
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon May 13 2002 - 05:35:06 EEST