28 Oct
2002
28 Oct
'02
11:45 a.m.
Hi.
On 17 Oct 2002, nick wrote:
Hi
IMO running each synth in its own thread with many synths going is
definitely _not_ the way forward. The host should definitely be the only
process, much how VST, DXi, pro tools et. al. work.
No, there is no real "instrument" or "synth" plugin API. but since
my
original post I have been brewing something up. its quite vst-like in
some ways, but ive been wanting to make it more elegant before
announcing it. It does, however, work, and is totally C++ based ATM. You
just inherit the "Instrument" class and voila. (ok, so it got renamed
along the way)
Although in light of Tommi's post (mastajuuri) i have to reconsider
working on my API. My only problem with mastajuuri is its dependance on
QT (if im not mistaken), sorry.
You are not mistaken. I could change the structure of Mustajuuri to make
some kind of core system (just DSP engine) with no Qt dependencies *IF* it
did get more developers for Mustajuuri (enough to justify dropping all the
Qt's tools (and I do mean tools besides the graphical stuff: Unicode
strings, XML, directory management, date and time services, language
translations etc.)).
But unless there is clear promise of this there is little point in going
for the extra effort.
Mustajuuri is modular in a sense that you can run DSP without
running a GUI. Or you can build alternate GUIs with other toolkits. Then
again there is prabably little point in making the Mustajuuri GUI with
anything but Qt, since the Qt will be necessary anyhow. Since all Linux
vendors distribute (and usually install) Qt it is a fairly safe library to
build on.
Tommi Ilmonen Researcher
Linux/IRIX
audio: Mustajuuri
3D audio/animation: DIVA