On Tuesday 13 February 2007 11:31:21 Stefano D'Angelo wrote:
2007/2/13, David García Garzón
<dgarcia(a)iua.upf.edu>du>:
On Monday 12 February 2007 21:34:08 Stefano
D'Angelo wrote:
Well,
that's our intent in CLAM[1]. The goal is that CLAM should be
able to run a given processing algorithm transparently under several
backends. Currently we support, to some extend, PortAudio, Jack,
Alsa, and VST. The first three backends can be used with a Qt
Designer interface. We still have to face several fronts: Unifying
the interface to fit all the backends, incorporating more backends
(some work on Ladspa has been done), and enabling Qt GUI's to more
backends (notably VST).
Well, I think I've not understood what you mean: Jack, Alsa and
PortAudio are not sound processing plugin formats... can you explain
it easier please? (I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker)
They are not plugin systems, you're right, but if you have a processing
algorithm encapsulated in a way that it describes itself (number of
ports, controls... then you can build wrappers (what we call backends)
that maps this algorithm to a given plugin system (ladspa, vst...) but
also to a given underlaying audio system api (portaudio, alsa, directx..)
For example, if i want my algorithm to be a Laspa plugin, i could use a
Ladspa backend, that compiles as library, that maps connection topology
of the processing algorithm to a Ladspa descriptor and when it is called,
it just feeds data to and from the ports and executes the algorithm. A
Jack backend should be very similar but it compiles as an application and
publishes the ports as Jack ports to the server. And so on. Of course,
there is a lot of work on handling each backend singularities such as
JACK server availability, api/device enumeration in portaudio...
In short, the intended result is that the developer designs the algoritm
once and then it can be used as any kind of plugin (what you asked for,
didn't you?), and not just plugins but also standalone application.
We also provide a way of relating a qt interface to certain parts of the
algorithm. This is already available for standalone applications
backends[1] (JAck, PA, Alsa..) but we want to provide that also for
plugin systems such as VST.
[1]
http://iua-share.upf.es/wikis/clam/index.php/Network_Editor_tutorial
I hope to have explained myself better, but feel free to ask me more
information if you are interested in.
David.
Mmmm... I think we are interested in two opposite things: I want an
host to use any kind of plugin without having to know which kind it
is.
For example I have some LV2, some VST and some LADSPA plugins. The
wrapper I'm talking about would be able to interface with them and let
my host use any of them (as it was a gstreamer for audio plugins).
Instead you want that a plugin/application writer describes its
algorithm and it can be "traslated" in a LADSPA plugin, as well as a
JACK application, etc. Am I right?
Ok, your are right; we are talking about different things but related
anyway. :-)
Yes, it's very interesting and it is a path we want to walk. Currently, apart
of building Ladspa plugins, CLAM also can be a Ladspa host and we should
extend that to other plugins systems. We have two students in our lab working
on plugin and hosting aspects, but they need some time for any outcome.
But, anyway, maybe combining the two things could be
of some interest:
imagine that you want to be able to develop and use immediately in all
supporting applications a plugin system capable of using the
z-transform.
In this way you could build a module for this wrapper and
soon start programming your plugins and use them, without having to
wait for the adoption of "your standard".
CLAM is not an standard to be adopted. Alsa, Jack and so on are the standards.
CLAM should be a convenience implementation tool. Migration is something that
can not be expected and we have a lot of experience on that. I am for
providing interframework wrappers so everyone could develop on the framework
he is used to (Mathlab, Marsyas, Pd...) and still reuse what it is done in
other frameworks.
Also, this way some noticeable improvements can be
made on performance
if this wrapper would be able to represent processing networks which
can be "simplified", as for example a net of LTI systems with known
transfer function (fourier transform).
Sorry, I don't understand you here.
David.