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 - 14:52:02 EEST
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 11:17, Steve Harris wrote:
> I wasn't particularly disagreeing with your proposal BTW, I was just
> rambling on my pet topic :)
NP, just trying to make you completely agree :)
>
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:50:36 +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> It is relevent, the point is that the development efort going into plugins
> is dispraportioanlyl small compared to the apps. This means that the few
> of us wh oare coding plugins start with fairly basic things, as there
> needed most.
True and as i'm trying to point out, basic things is all we need in
terms of DSP. You're more looking at the history of LADSPA development,
how the whole concept evolved. But i think this could really be
irrelevant for the future development of linux audio fx and synths.
>
> > > 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.
>
> JAMin is not a plugin. Its an app.
Think about it.
A typical fx plugin takes audio as input does DSProcessing to the audio
and outputs that. What does JAMin do?
The whole purpose of JAMin is to do DSP. And if you make a send in
ardour... :)
>
> > > 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. :)
>
> Ah, but its a good thing :)
JAMin is a good thing :)
>
> > > Fewer controls is better.
> >
> > Doesn't seem like if you look at the most successful
> > VST(i)/DX(i)/RTAS/TDM/AI plugins :)
>
> They have fewer controls than they could have. Also, with custom UIs its easier
> to get away with more as some can be hidden in an "advanced" popout or
> whatever.
They have a lot of controls usually. The point in having lots of
controls in a dedicated plugin is that you don't have to setup a dozen
of ladspas in a mixer strip, care about their number of i/os and reorder
them in order to achieve what you want.
Try to reproduce JAMin in one ardour mixer strip(yeah, that tiny black
insert window) with the corresponding ladspas.
The lesser controls you'll have the more plugins you'll be forced to
use.
>
> > > 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.
>
> I Disagree. We have 0% affordance, 0% appearance, 100% usability (not that
> there really orthoganal). You cant have affordance if you dont have
> control over appearance and layout.
Usability - as each host provides it's own UI for the same plugins,
there's really no usability at all. The true beauty about VSTs is that
they have the same visual appearance no matter which application you're
using. That's rule #1 for having usability at all. And then there's the
question of smaller usability issues, this varies from VST plugin to VST
plugin.
Marek
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jun 08 2004 - 12:39:30 EEST