7 Dec
2002
7 Dec
'02
7:08 p.m.
On Saturday 07 December 2002 21.17, Steve Harris wrote:
Its not purely aimed at instruments, but its heavily focused that
way, it probably wouldn't make sense to use this API for something
LADSPA can do well (eg. audio+control -> audio+control). If you
need timestamps or polyphony then this would be the way to go, but
realisticly that means intruments and a few other odd cases.
I disagree. I still think the VST folks are right when they say it's
a bad think of effects and instruments as two different kinds of
plugins. There are just too many technical similarities to motivate a
separation, and there are too many "weird things" plugin authors want
to do that needs features from both "classes".
Are we going to have LADSPA, and soon OAPI (or whatever it'll be) -
and in a year or two, another API, effectively merging LADSPA and
OAPI?
Why? What is it that LADSPA does that would be so complicated that an
instrument API must not support it?
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. |
| RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. |
`---------------------------> http://olofson.net/audiality -'
.- M A I A -------------------------------------------------.
| The Multimedia Application Integration Architecture |
`----------------------------> http://www.linuxdj.com/maia -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
The intention is that these things would (on the
whole) be
sound generators, right? To me plugin implies inline
processing.
This API is not purely instrumental. It can certainly be for
effects and sinks, too. That said, we're spending a lot of time
on the instrumental part because it's the new ground wrt LADSPA.