promoting DSSI, was re: [linux-audio-dev] impulse convolution LADSPA plugin

[Dave Phillips]

Stefan Turner wrote:

>I will definitely look into using DSSI, looks like it
>could be good once as supported as LADSPA is (I'd
>never even heard of it before your post, although
>that's probably just me). Is it intended as an
>eventual LADSPA replacement? I never really saw the
>need to divide plugins into 'instruments' and
>'effects', and it seems like DSSI can do both.
>  
>
If I may chime in here... I urge all Linux audio developers to read the 
DSSI spec, it's well-written and directly addresses some of LADSPA's 
shortcomings. After working with VSTi plugins for a while I've begun to 
see the need for something similar in a native Linux architecture, and I 
think DSSI is an excellent way for us to get that. If you don't already 
know about it, you can learn more about DSSI here:

    http://dssi.sourceforge.net/

Again, if you're a developer, check it out. Some good minds are behind 
its design, and Linux audio software truly needs DSSI (or something like).

Best,

dp