Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Is ladspa actually la-dsp-a? Is JACK the ultimate solution?
From: Marek Peteraj (marpet_AT_naex.sk)
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 11:06:00 EEST
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 21:15, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 01:54:58PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
>
> > Fons' Moog HP filter is a complex piece of DSP i suspect.
>
> No, it's actually quite simple :-) The most complex one is
> the four-band parametric filter I released recently, and
> that's also the only one that is not intended as an AMS
> plugin. And it will reappear in some time as a JACK
> application with it's own GUI, as this permits to do some
> things that would be difficult in a plugin.
>
> Just to throw in my 2 eurocents in this debate:
>
> - When I saw the collection of VST plugins that Paul Davis used
> to show his VST hosting in Karlsruhe, I asked myself "My god,
> do they all look that childish ?".
Ask win32 and mac users how the linux audio UIs look like :)
> This is just to say I terribly
> dislike this eye-candy style, and given the choice between that
> and a (maybe boring) set of standard toolkit sliders, I'd prefer
> the latter. The ideal is somewhere in between, but certainly not
> to the eye-candy side.
>
> - Before everything went digital, multitrack mixing desks had
> lots of controls and very little space to put them in. Good
> layout was absolutely essential, and most of the big name
> manufacturers mastered this quite well. It's done by
>
> - observing elementary aesthetic rules (e.g. color
> combinations),
> - removing all useless clutter,
thus saving a few bucks.. :)
> - following the logic of the application, e.g. keeping
> things that are related together,
> - accepting culturally defined standards, such as that
> a signal flows from left to right and from top to bottom.
> - using hints that are picked up unconsciously, rather
> than explicit labeling.
Doesn't influence eye-candy much.
> - The typical VST plugin (talking about the serious ones)
> corresponds more to a JACK application than a LADSPA plugin,
> not because both have a GUI, but because of the complexity.
> This is just a matter of naming. We could start calling a
> JACK application a JACK 'plugin' but I'd vote against.
> JAMIN is a good example of this.
But if you let JAMin run as the only client, you'll see it makes no
sense, since it needs audio input to be useful.
You guys are developers, but this could get rather confusing for users.
Marek
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jun 09 2004 - 08:55:21 EEST