Re: [linux-audio-dev] Is ladspa actually la-dsp-a? Is JACK the ultimate solution?

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 01:54:58PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote: No, it's actually quite simple :-) The most complex one is the four-band parametric filter I released recently, and that's also the only one that is not intended as an AMS plugin. And it will reappear in some time as a JACK application with it's own GUI, as this permits to do some things that would be difficult in a plugin. Just to throw in my 2 eurocents in this debate: - When I saw the collection of VST plugins that Paul Davis used to show his VST hosting in Karlsruhe, I asked myself "My god, do they all look that childish ?".

This is just to say I terribly dislike this eye-candy style, and given the choice between that and a (maybe boring) set of standard toolkit sliders, I'd prefer the latter. The ideal is somewhere in between, but certainly not to the eye-candy side. - Before everything went digital, multitrack mixing desks had lots of controls and very little space to put them in. Good layout was absolutely essential, and most of the big name manufacturers mastered this quite well. It's done by - observing elementary aesthetic rules (e.g. color combinations), - removing all useless clutter,

- following the logic of the application, e.g. keeping things that are related together, - accepting culturally defined standards, such as that a signal flows from left to right and from top to bottom. - using hints that are picked up unconsciously, rather than explicit labeling.

- The typical VST plugin (talking about the serious ones) corresponds more to a JACK application than a LADSPA plugin, not because both have a GUI, but because of the complexity. This is just a matter of naming. We could start calling a JACK application a JACK 'plugin' but I'd vote against. JAMIN is a good example of this.