Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [Alsa-devel] Firewire Audio Card Support
From: Brad Fuller (brad_AT_sonaural.com)
Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 - 17:42:47 EET
Steve Harris wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 07:46:37 -0800, Brad Fuller wrote:
>
>
>>>Sure - that's a fair comment and a design decision once some project
>>>like this gets started. I just brainstorming. However, even with an
>>>onboard DSP, which is most likely what Pro Tools does, we'd still need
>>>to map from LADSPA C code to DSP code. Is that easy?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I would think it's easier than mapping gates.
>>I have not ever looked at LADSPA code. I assume most people write in C.
>>Today's DSPs, even 10 years ago, have a full compliment of C programming
>>tools. Bingo.
>>
>>
>
>Not really, most audio DSP chips use fixedpoint maths, which you cant
>use in C very well, and LADSPA plugins are 99% floating point.
>
Can you explain why you feel you can't use FixedP in C very well?
> Yes, but coding for DSPs is really hard work, and LADSPA plugins wont
> port over as they use floating point maths.
I don't understand what you mean here either.
As far as DSPs that have FltP: The 320 has FP, the 2106 has FltP, etc
Do you mean they're too expensive?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Nov 19 2004 - 17:52:31 EET