3 Jan
2005
3 Jan
'05
7:12 p.m.
Tom Szilagyi wrote:
At first I agreed that the splitter was the solution, and I wrote one,
only to find one already exists in the SWH package. The argument is
that this is clumsy and not an optimal solution. After hearing this
argument, it does seem like a cleaner, faster solution to have available
plugins in various connection formats instead of building the
connections from lego's. I am in no way an authority on this though, so
I am going to forward this to LAD, as I think it pertains to all the
plugin projects. There was recently a thread on ardour-dev regarding
connections and plugin counts that is probably going to start all over
again, but discussions are fun anyway, arent they? :)
Doug
--
http://nostar.net/
Hey Tom,
Attatched is a patch that creates a 1in / 2out version of TAP Stereo Echo. It would need
a
new ladspa ID and better name possibly. Ardour now has a strict policy regarding plugin
connections, requiring a mono to stereo splitter to preceed TAP S.E. on a mono track.
The
popular opinion with the ardour guys is that plugins be made available in various forms
instead of trying to make the host too complex or having to use combinations to acheive
the desired results.
I can do the others as well, like reverberator, etc too if you would like.
Hi,
What if I released a stand-alone mono->stereo splitter plugin ASAP?
That would solve this issue completely, no?
Of course, users will have to explicitly use it, but if I agree to make split versions
of
all my stereo plugins, then 1) users still have to decide which one to use and 2)
duplicated
code to maintain arises (and many Ladspa ID-s get wasted) etc etc.
OK, I see you wrote "having to use combinations to achieve the desired results"
is ungood,
but I still think this is a cleaner solution from an engineering p.o.v.
So, what's your opinion? Splitter-plugin vs plugin-splitting? :)