16 Jan
2004
16 Jan
'04
3:42 p.m.
On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 06:18, Steve Harris wrote:
Sure, but equally modular synth modules are also very
simple - at least
externally. The only thing they can do that LADSPA can't is: have UIs and
detect wether thier inputs are connected. Those are not hard problems to
solve.
Well, I was really trying to kill the LADSPA GUI discussion (just
because it killed the last similar LADSPA thread), but I'll say
something about it:
Not once in my fiddlings with LADSPA plugins in a modular synth have I
said to myself "Damn.. these things need a big spiffy GUI". Honestly, a
bunch of sliders works just fine for me - I don't really see the need
for more. Sure, VSTs that look like shiny audio hardware are nifty...
but who cares?
(I mean, yes it would be nice if LADSPA could do that I guess. But it
can't, and I think it's a completely seperate problem to the modular
synth/polyphony/port connected problems)
FWIW, I dont think its neccesarily important that
LADSPA is used in
modular synths, its far more important that modular synths all use the
same module format, whatever it is, to save the duplication of effort
thats going on currently.
Absolutely, but if LADSPA could be that plugin format.. that would be
obviously the best case. Then every audio plugin would be the same
format, which is cool.
GUI stuff aside, are there any compelling reasons to create a new
modular synth plugin API? (LADMSPA doesn't have a very nice ring to it
:) )
- Steve