2 Jun
2008
2 Jun
'08
8:20 a.m.
Hi Fons,
2008/6/2 Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)kokkinizita.net>et>:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 07:22:02PM +0200, Stefano
D'Angelo wrote:
I've been (and still am) quite critical of LV2. But reading
this draft I'm inclined to forgive the LV2 developers all
their sins and offer them an unlimited supply of Amarone,
which is one of Italy's best and most expensive red wines.
I already roughed out some on this mailing list.
lack of interest to accomodate the particular
needs of
this niche by most standardized sound processing API
authors;
Maybe you could start by stating what those particular
needs are. I could write out a long list of what is wrong with
and
missing from this spec, but I'm currently not inclined
to do so. But one absolute killer is:
Read this and think a little bit about it:
The API has been designed around the typical use case where a generic audio
source is processed in a series of subsequent stages (chain-like fashion,
informally speaking) and then sent to a generic audio output.
In this kind of applications sound processing is a marginal task,
while encoding/decoding are not (and doing some work on audacious has
made that quite clear to me). It's way better to keep those things
separated IMO.
Non prendertela a male e buona festa della repubblica,
Stefano
Number of interleaved input (and hence output)
channels.
What on earth makes you think that the number of inputs
and outputs should be the same ?