Steve,
> I think you mean Word Clock.
you are probably right.
> IIRC it's not an open design. It's owned by Alesis.
That may or may not be a problem depending on their licencing requirments.
Esben,
No need to be sorry :) If 192kHz is to high we can always slow it down. 96 or 48 would allow more processing power to be used for other things.
James,
I want one too :)
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
Hi everyone!
I think, I heard, that someone already did some preliminary example for
ladspa2. Am I right there? If so, where can I find it?
Kindest regards
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net - the Linux TextBased Studio guide
Almost two years ago at the LA conference a bunch of us agreed that
something need to be done to improve LADSPA, and on the approximate
direction it should take.
Anyway, I finally got round to making a sketch plugin and .h file:
http://plugin.org.uk/ladspa2/
The .ladspa2 plugin is a "bundle", ie. a directory with all the data the
plugin needs in it. This idea is nicked from OPENSTEP. I'm not 100%
convinced it's a good idea, but I think it makes sense for plugins.
The dsp core (amp.c) is just a LADSPA 1.1 plugin with all the fixed data
fields taken out, and a URI field added, to allow for working
identification. I also dropped the runAdding method, as I dont think it
is used enough to justify the effort of supporting it. The plugin is
untested, but it compiles and nm reports sane contents for it.
The data is in the amp.ttl file (it's in Turtle
http://www.dajobe.org/2004/01/turtle/ an easy to hand-write RDF syntax).
We could mandate a particular syntax for the spec.
There's a shell script (show-data.sh) which, if you have raptor and rasqal
installed will do something similar to what analyseplugin does for LADSPA
1.x, but it's very crude.
Overall I think this is a much better approach than LADSPA 1.x, it has
usable identifiers, a clear route for extensions without compatibility
problems and each plugin is quite a lot simpler.
- Steve
Hi,
It is widely felt that the LADSPA plugins are becoming difficult for
average users to manage due to the number of available plugins and the
many different packages available.
There is also a problem that developers face when managing different
plugins as UniqueIds are not assigned by a central authority so it is
possible that there can be double ups.
I am volunteering my time to code a new web portal with the express
purpose of providing a single place to get all known LADSPA plugins and
packages. It will be hosted at ladspa.linuxaudio.org. it will also serve
as a central automated authority for assigning UniqueIds.
I would like to use this thread to discuss the finer details of the
functionality of the site and how to make a package of all Plugins which
will also be hosted on the site. The site will be run with a MYSQL DB. I
intend to code it in AJAX style with a PHP+MYSQL backend.
It will be a fully automated web portal and administrative interface.
Here are the features:
---------------
- Add new plugin/s via batch or manual upload/insert
- Automated assigning of UniqueIds
- Create complete package tarball automatically
- Administrative interface for managing plugins and developer profiles
etc...
- User friendly frontend with accessibility: css, java, php, html, xml
----------------
I will appreciate your indepth analysis of the best methods to allow the
above features for the portal. At this stage the most important points
to discuss are how to manage the plugins efficiently and with minimal
overhead and assigning UniqueIds automatically.
Cheers.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.comHttp://www.djcj.org/LAU/guide/ - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
"Anything your mind can see you can manifest physically, then it will
become reality" - Macka B
Steve Harris:
>
> Several people have suggested that LADSPA is not a great name for what we
> are calling LADSPA 2. Reasons for this include:
>
> The L, it's not really linux specific, and though /we/ know that its the L
> of LAD, its not obvious to people outside.
>
> The S, it ain't really going to be simple. For someone like me, who is
> neck deep in triples on a daily basis, 2.0 seems like the paragon of
> simplicity, but I can imagine 2.9 being quite a beast.
>
> LADSPA, (pron. ladspuh?) is a bit of a mouthful, and not exactly catchy.
>
> 2.0, it's not going to be obvious to all users that 2.0 and 1.0 are binary
> incompatible. I'm not sure everyone thinks in major and minor revisions.
>
> So, with some trepidation I suggest that we think about naming, with the
> proviso that if we haven't reached consensus by May 10th we default to
> LADSPA 2.0, and live with the pain.
>
I don't agree about taking away the "L". Ladspa is not linux-specific, but
it has certainly originated from linux, and has the best support in
linux software. If linux dissapears before the ladspa format, we can at
least still remember linux through the name of ladspa...
Regarding your argumentation about the prononounciation, I think its a bit
anglocentric language-vice. In most other countries (scandinavian,
german, spanish, belgian, dutch, slavic (I might be wrong about some of
these though)), where the "a" is actually pronounced like the round "ah"
(and very short in this case), and you don't have to move the mouth that
much as in english (and especially in american english), "ladspa" sounds
really cool and is not very difficult to say. A good solution to this
problem would be if the english speakers started to allways say the more
common rounder "ah" instead of "a", not only for ladspa, but for all
acronyms.
I think the argument about S is valid enough though, but not a good enough
argument to change a name we all have learned and love(?). As an
alternative, we can change the meaning of s into something else, like
Super, Second, Sophisticated, System, Steve, Sourcecode, Syntax,
Structure, Success, Superb, Superior. To name a few, well, I'm sure there
are better alternatives.
> ----
>
> My suggestion is that we ressurect the XAP name
> (http://www.google.com/search?q=lad+xap)
> It stood for Xap Audio Plugin IIRC.
>
> Pros: it's short*, relatively unused** and pronouncable***
>
> Cons: xap.{com,org,net} will have gone long ago (too short), theres a
> small ammount of baggage.
>
I think its too short. Its not cool, and its hard to remember from the
pronounciation.
Hi!
Usually I don't announce new versions of libgig here anymore, but this release
might be of interest for some:
Beside a bunch of bug fixes it now also allows to modify existing and create
new Gigasampler files. If anybody's interested in writing a .gig editor, have
a look at the "gigwritedemo.cpp" example application:
http://stud.hs-heilbronn.de/~cschoene/projects/libgig/#examples
libgig is released under (pure) GPL and as always available on its original
site:
http://stud.hs-heilbronn.de/~cschoene/projects/libgig/
as well as on the LS server:
http://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.htmlhttp://download.linuxsampler.org/packages/
CU
Christian
P.S. I just restored the old libgig source packages on the LS server, all
other packages will be restored after LAC (that is next week) - I know the
downloads section on LS.org was dead for too long now, sorry!
OK, it seems like the consensus is clear to me. So far, most people want to
use/keep LADSPA2. I ran it through a condorcet program, just to make sure,
but it't not in doubt. FWIW, by my count the pure "acceptable" numbers
came out as:
17 ladspa2
7 xap
6 peep
5 apa
4 sax
4 plux
3 rap
2 peeper
2 eep
1 wasap
1 sap
1 pea
1 openplux
1 lapa
1 fap
1 clap
1 chap
And the condorcet pattern was:
9 ladspa2
1 ladspa2>apa>sax
1 ladspa2>plux
1 ladspa2>sap>xap>peep>peeper>sax>fap>eep>clap>chap>apa>rap>pea>wasap>rap
1 ladspa2>lapa>plux>xap
1 openplux>plux>ladspa2
1 peep
1 peeper>peep>apa
1 plux>apa>ladspa2
1 sax>eep>xap
1 xap>apa>ladspa2
1 xap>peep
1 xap>rap>peep
1 xap>sax>peep>ladspa2
Only 23% of those voters would find LADSPA2 unacceptable, next best is XAP
which 68% would find unacceptable.
I wasn't especially rigourous, so I may have missed, or misinterpreted
someones vote. Someone could poll the LAU list if they felt inclined.
I think that we should give the people who's names appear on the original
.h file a veto, as were doing some radical changes to the design - though
hopefully still in the spirit of the original. It doesn't look like we'd
ever reach consensus on any other name though.
*sigh* I guess I should invest in an anti-RSI keyboard.
- Steve
Discusson seems to have slowwed down a bit, so I went through the list
archive and pulled out all the names:
apa chap clap eep fap ladspa2 pea peep peeper rap sax wasap xap
----
I vetoed ape and meep as the name clashes are too close.
To see if theres early consensus lets run a condorcet vote on the options.
If everyone posts thier preference in order seperated by >, eg.
foo>bar>baz
means "I'd like foo, but if I cant have that I'l have bar, and if I cant
have that I'l have baz, everything else is unacceptable". Then we can run
it thorugh an online voting system.
- Steve