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

Jens M Andreasen jens.andreasen at
Thu May 12 02:29:52 UTC 2005

Wouldn't it be natural to have midi (triggers,u-nameit) to come along
with the call from jack? One more argument in the call wouldn't break
anything in legacy-applications.

My rationale being that the midi-aware application would like to know
the latest news of the world (and adjust), before doing its
calculations, right? And getting it from jack (running RT) would
guarantee that this really is the latest and truest description of the
midi-world, no? 

Mmmm .. Have we been here before? 

On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 09:03 -0500, Dave Phillips wrote:
> 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:
> 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

  c[]  //  Jens M Andreasen

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list