Re: [linux-audio-dev] Project: modular synth editor

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Project: modular synth editor
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Jan 15 2004 - 11:19:19 EET


On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 06:22:09 -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
> I agree. The S in ladspa is the most important letter in there :).
> But, how about we just pretend you didn't even mention the word "UI".
> That's what killed the last LADSPA polyphony/misc improvements
> discussion.
>
> Anyway, the UIs can't control multiple instances if the simple audio
> stuff underneath (ie current LADSPA plugins) can't handle it. _That's_
> what we need to look into IMO.

Its nothing to do with the plugin - thier control (and uadio for that
matter) inputs can just be bound together. Its just a case of how the UI
is handled by the host.
 
> Agreed 100%. Unfortunately, like you said, LADSPA changes. If plugins
> are to get more versatile and have more and more control/audio ports,
> some mechanism to ignore ports is definately needed.

Hmm... disagree. Its not output connections that are imortant, its input
connections. Some plugin naturally have a different behaviour when
different inputs are connected, eg. a reverb with only left connected
becahes differently to one with left and right, but where right is silent.

OTOH it wouldn't hurt.

For reference I was thinking of something like

if (right_in == host->disconneted_input) {
        process_mono();
} else {
        process_stereo();
}
 
> If I'm just using an oscillator to get a sine wav, it's pretty wasteful
> for the plugin to be calculating exponential _and_ liner FM, PWM (pulse
> width), and bob knows what else.

When plugins offer multiple outputs like that its generally becuase one
can be calculated very cheaply from the others. If thats not the case then
the author should provice multiple versions IMNSHO.
 
> I shouldn't even say "modular synth", because such a program would
> definately be an awesome effects rack. Having a jack rack except being
> able to string things together however you want is something I think
> everyone can appreciate.

Many people (including me) use modular synths primarily as effects racks.
Please dont encourage jack-rack complexity - one of the things that makes
it wonderful is that its so simple.

- Steve


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jan 15 2004 - 11:24:22 EET