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 - 21:40:54 EEST
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 15:43, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 04:24:05 +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 12:11, Steve Harris wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 01:52:02 +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
> > > > > 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... :)
> > >
> > > The point I didnt make is that JAMin /cannot/ be implemented efficiently
> > > as a set of plugins. The (majority, non-ladspa) DSP code is very
> > > intermingled, to make it run in realtime.
> >
> > How much DSP code is non-ladspa in JAMin? (approx. in %-age?)
>
> 90%
>
> The non-ladspa DSP code is 3800 lines (not inc. libraries), the LADSPA code
> (including preamble, not libraries) is < 400.
Which part of that DSP code would be impossible to implement separately
as ladspa?
Marek
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jun 08 2004 - 19:26:35 EEST