Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] emagic (logic) drops VST support under OS X
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_op.net)
Date: Mon Sep 02 2002 - 15:41:10 EEST
>> http://www.emagic.de/english/news/2002/osx3.html
>> http://www.emagic.de/german/news/2002/osx3.html
>
>OK, so the inevitable question. do we know how 'free' the spec is giong to
>be? Is it a good candidate for LADPA?
>
>I get the impression that the graphics API is tied to the DSP API, which
>could make it hard for us X11 people.
my impression from reading the AudioUnits docs of late last year was
that there was no mention of graphics at all in the API. thats why it
seemed hard to figure out if they are in-process or o-o-p. otoh, i
think that apple fully intends the specification itself to be
"free". its not like VST, where you have to go and *get* VST from
steinberg; CoreAudio comes *with* OS X, and so they have no
distribution issues to worry about - its part of the same overall
license as the OS. i presume that means that implementing a version of
the API for a different OS is completely legal. header files? not
sure.
i don't consider AudioUnits a good candidate for LADPA, but that
doesn't mean i don't like the AudioUnits API. instead, it was a prime
motivator behind JACK. i think that VST is actually much better
overall, but it has some rough edges that might, or might not, be
fixed in 3.0. VST is a lot, lot, lot more tested in the real world.
the AudioUnit API still shows way too many signs of "Apple-speak" for
me. i can't really pin down what i mean by this, but whenever i browse
the API specs, i just have this pascal-y, motorola-ish feeling in my
gut :)
plus there's that little problem with AudioUnits not being capable of
capture as of a few months back. somebody on the VST plugins list
claimed it was something to do with a kernel thread design issue -
quite deep, if true.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Sep 02 2002 - 15:51:34 EEST