[linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [Alsa-devel] Firewire Audio Card Support

[Brad Fuller]

Mark Knecht wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:19:45 -0800, Brad Fuller <brad at sonaural.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>
>>Mark Knecht wrote:
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>>Instead of a $400 2 channel PCI card we might end up with a $600
>>>16-in/16-out device with hardware signal processing on board. To me
>>>this is probably a better place to go. If we do all this work ten we
>>>want to start working towards an architecture that will last.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Taking ladspa and mapping it to FPGA: how?  and how would you do this
>>efficiently, if you could do it?  A C function to VHDL function
>>convertor? (it's been a long time since I've worked with FPGAs. I'm sure
>>there are advances)
>>It might be more cost effective to use DSPs -- that is: more cost
>>effective in the long run for everybody -- mostly the end user.
>>
>>brad
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>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.

Of course, the goal would be to strike a proper balance with making it 
easy and cheap to design and mfr with making it easy and inexpensive for 
the end user. From what I've read, that is your profession! I have 
always said that engineering is an exercise in compromise ;-)

It would be a cool and fun project!

Have you seen plugzilla or receptor?
http://www.plugzilla.com/overview
http://www.museresearch.com/receptor_overview.php

Kinda what you're talking about?

I think they created a VST wrapper to run in Linux. I would bet the 
creators of one or both of these products visit this site.

brad