Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Is ladspa actually la-dsp-a? Is JACK the ultimate solution?
From: Marek Peteraj (marpet_AT_naex.sk)
Date: Tue Jun 08 2004 - 13:50:36 EEST
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 10:18, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:45:53 +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
> > VST plugins tend to be rather complex, offering tons of features and
> > eyecandish GUIs, while LADSPAs usually offer limited functionality, no
> > GUI at all(hosts usually provide simple ones to control the parameters).
> > But what's interesting is that each LADSPA plugin usually implements
> > exactly one type of DSP technique, for example, an oscillator, or a
> > delay. This basically leads to a situation where a certain DSP technique
> > is 'isolated' in a separate plugin.
>
> I think thats down to two factors (and its not a good thing)
>
> 1) LADSPA developers are few in number and short in time. The basics are a
> good place to start.
The number of dsp developers isn't relevant.
Besides - there's at least 5 devs i know of. The number will grow.
>
> 2) The lack of a UI standard makes complex plugins a bit pointless.
Why do you need a UI standard for jack fx/synth clients? Does JAMin
follow one such standard?
You could do a virtually unlimited amount of UIs for exactly 1 fx/synth
using IPC.
>
> There are a few counter examples (e.g. my VyNil plugin wraps a lot of
> different bits), and infact if you look in many LADSPA plugins you will
> see theres really more going on than there appears to be.
According to my proposal, this shouldn't happen. :)
>
> [OT] - my canned plugin writing experience - all generalisations and IMHO
> of course
>
> Time breakdown: 10% writing code, 10% maths and optimising, 80% tweaking
> and tuning.
See point 6)
>
> Fewer controls is better.
Doesn't seem like if you look at the most successful
VST(i)/DX(i)/RTAS/TDM/AI plugins :)
>
> Affordance, appearance and usability has as much affect on the perceived
> sound quality as the DSP code (posivly and negativly). Some of this can
> be achieved without a custom UI.
Today we've got 100% Affordance, 0% appearance and 0% usability. :)
At least the point that there's no unified affordance since each host
implements it's own, makes the question of usability irrelevant.
>
> You mentioned JAMin - true that does use LADSPA plugins - but of the total
> ammount of code the LADSPA plugins are a tiny fraction. I just reused them
> because I hate fixing bugs in two places :)
And? :)
Points 5) and 6)
Marek
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jun 08 2004 - 11:36:28 EEST