Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Audio synchronization, MIDI API
From: John Check (j4strngs_AT_bitless.net)
Date: Wed Aug 18 2004 - 22:36:55 EEST
On Tuesday 17 August 2004 08:19 pm, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 16:50, John Check wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 August 2004 12:53 pm, Ralf Beck wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 17. August 2004 01:47 schrieb Lee Revell:
> > > > On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 19:24, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, John Check wrote:
> > > > > > That was exactly what I was thinking when the penny dropped for
> > > > > > me. Originally I was thinking of offload the softsynths, but FX
> > > > > > are expensive too. The ideal is to make a total system, but make
> > > > > > it modular, and give it the ability to connect with existing
> > > > > > commercial systems via a VST counterpart to the plugin.
> > > > > > We need to take over incrementally and this is a killer strategy
> > > > > > to get a toehold.
> > >
> > > In the comercial windows world, FX-Teleport and VST System Link are
> > > doing exactly this.
> >
> > Okay, it's good there is a precedent. That means we can probably take the
> > business end of dladspa and VST'ify it.
>
> I still say networked audio belongs in jack, not a plugin.
Yes well, that it's implemented as a plug in was I presume for expediency.
It has a few design artifacts to it like that. The important part is the
transport concept has been studied and since it's OO...
>
> I guess a VST solution existing would suggest otherwise, but personally
> I think it's a stupid idea well outside the realm of plugins (especially
> LADSPA, which shouldn't be sending things over a network)
>
And if cavemen debated killing animals for food and clothing we wouldn't be
discussing opinions ;) Personally, when the concept blew into my head,
"plugin" wasn't part of it. For now, it's a gateway. That application of the
UNIX paradigm gives us an advantage makes it killer in the long term.
> Besides, looked at from the perspective of a modular synth (just because
> it's an easy example), your patches are going to have to be specifically
> set up to be sending crap over the network (ie they'll have to have a
> special plugin loaded, and all the audio going into that). If it was
> Jack, everything in every app could be set up just as usual, and it
> would be sent over the network by jack, unbeknownst to the app. IMO
> much cleaner and flexible.
>
Well... UNIX paradigm. Does it really matter that we use more than one
data transport? I can think of some other arguments, but I have to write up a
proposal for some consulting gig... I'm gonna be scarce for a day or two so
hold that thought.
> -DR-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Aug 18 2004 - 22:42:20 EEST