Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [Alsa-devel] Firewire Audio Card Support
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 - 18:55:57 EET
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 07:42:47 -0800, Brad Fuller wrote:
>
> 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?
Because it doesnt have any fixedpoint control operators or library
functions.
> >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?
No idea, all I know is that most of the audio DSP systems I know of use
fixedpoint DSPs. Possibly due to cost contraints.
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Nov 19 2004 - 19:00:03 EET