[linux-audio-dev] Concerning libfst, vstserver, and dssi-vst

[Dave Robillard]

On Mon, 2005-11-04 at 22:43 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > Btw, I like the DSSI API, but it seems slow in 
> > catching on with developers. Is that perception correct ?
> 
> Yes, I think so.
> 
> I do think you have to bear in mind that the pool of Linux audio 
> developers is also still rather small.  It's not like there have ever 
> been many people writing LADSPA plugins either -- the situation there 
> is just distorted by the few authors who have produced dozens.
> 
> Any system with a good supporting library for simple builds of pretty 
> plugins is going to do better, and for some reason nobody has seen that 
> as an interesting thing to develop for DSSI, or else has had the time 
> to do it.  The API may be fairly simple, but it's apparently still a 
> bit tricky to get going with, and there isn't a critical mass of 
> developers or example code.

FWIW, I'll be writing a DSSI sampler, oscillators, and miscellaneous
other stuff Real Soon Now(TM).  Just overly busy with LCA2005 stuff,
debugging, etc..  I guess these kinds of plugins aren't that useful
outside a modular though.

>  What we really need is the equivalent of 
> VST's SynthEdit.  (I don't want to hear arguments that SynthEdit 
> encourages low-quality all-icing plugins -- in my view it's a really 
> effective enabler for people to do interesting DSP assemblies on their 
> own with usable results, and I'd rather support the existing body of 
> SynthEdit synths than a hundred glossy commercial offerings.)

There was some talk a while ago about making Om (my modular synth) able
to create DSSI plugins.  I don't think it would be (easily) possible to
have it actually build a normal DSSI shared library from a patch, but
something like that max-ladspa hack (that allows a max patch to run as a
ladspa plugin) should be easily possible, since the whole thing is
already controlled via OSC anyway.

Not quite the same thing, but maybe better than nothing..

-DR-