[LAU] Plugin confused

[Gabriel M. Beddingfield]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Chip VanDan wrote:

> I recently was writing up an article for my site about my experiences
> with VST capabilities in Linux, mostly focused on the use of FST and
> learned that there was such thing as Linux Native VST format.  I was
> about to begin compiling an addendum to my article but I discovered
> more.  I already knew about LADSPA and knew a little about DSSI, but
> in the process I learned a little about LV2 as well.  I'm trying to
> find a source that can compare all these plugin formats side by side
> and cannot seem to find one, so I might have to start compiling the
> project myself, but I figured I'd ask the LAU list first.  Why do we
> have all these different plugin formats, and what are the differences?
> Are there any more worth mention that I haven't found yet?

If you're looking for a concise answer, you'll be 
hard-pressed to find one.  This has plenty of links to the 
different tech... and each site usually has a FAQ about why 
they're different:

     http://linux-sound.org/plugins.html

Perhaps a too-simple way to view it is this:

     LADSPA is like VST (but no GUI ability),
         and only does effects.

     DSSI is like VSTi, and provides a way to
         make virtual instruments.

     LV2 is designed to be the end-all-be-all,
         extensible Free Plugin format.  It
         can be like VST, and VSTi, and more.

VST/VSTi's major problem is that the license does not 
work well with Free Software.

There's still a bit of friction between fans of DSSI and 
LV2.

    DSSI is a pragmatic solution to the need
    for instrument plugins that are analog to VSTi.
    However, if some other class of plugin comes
    along (VSTx), neither DSSI nor LADSPA will
    be able to handle it.

    LV2 is a solution that defines a basic plugin
    discovery mechanism... and its core features
    are to be implemented by /extensions/.  The
    strength is that LV2 can do "anything" (VST,
    VSTi, VSTx, french roast coffee)... just
    write an extension for it.  The weakness is
    that there is not (and will not be) a canonical
    set of extensions.  This has very confusing to
    a lot of people... and some even disagree
    with the philosophy.

HTH,
Gabriel