26 Apr
2006
26 Apr
'06
8:52 a.m.
I've written a first cut at an ontology/schema for the plugin RDF:
http://plugin.org.uk/ladspa2/ladspa-2.ttl
The term schema is a bit misleading, as it doesn't really enforce
anything, it really just gives you some hints about what to write. The
bulk of it is english text to explain the meaning of the bits that are no
longer in the .h
I tried to write it as clearly as possible, but the machine readable parts
might still be a bit cryptic and there could be errors. Shout if there's
any bits that don't make sense.
- Steve
26 Apr
26 Apr
9:01 a.m.
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 11:51 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
I've written a first cut at an ontology/schema for
the plugin RDF:
http://plugin.org.uk/ladspa2/ladspa-2.ttl
The term schema is a bit misleading, as it doesn't really enforce
anything, it really just gives you some hints about what to write. The
bulk of it is english text to explain the meaning of the bits that are no
longer in the .h
I tried to write it as clearly as possible, but the machine readable parts
might still be a bit cryptic and there could be errors. Shout if there's
any bits that don't make sense.
i know you didn't want to actually change much of the spec, but i would
like to protest at the continued inclusion of the "logarithmic" port
hint. its totally useless. at the very least, the hint should be removed
and replaced by two other hints: logarithmicE and logarithmic10. saying
that something might be better viewed using a logarithmic scale really
says nothing useful. a more satisfactory solution would add "dBFS" to
indicate that the port contains values indicating volumetric or gain
levels. something like that.
9:22 a.m.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:05:20 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 11:51 +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
yeah *cough* I did actualy change one thing, I droped the last clause of
the integer hint, because it Makes No Damn Sense. The bit that recommends
that you overshout the bounds you actually want, so that theres no
rounding problems. the host has to do that, the plugin can't second guess
how much leeway the hosts UI needs for rounding, and if the plugin rounds
to nearest integer it all comes out in the wash anyway.
Meant to say I'd done that, but forgot.
I've written a first cut at an
ontology/schema for the plugin RDF:
http://plugin.org.uk/ladspa2/ladspa-2.ttl
The term schema is a bit misleading, as it doesn't really enforce
anything, it really just gives you some hints about what to write. The
bulk of it is english text to explain the meaning of the bits that are no
longer in the .h
I tried to write it as clearly as possible, but the machine readable parts
might still be a bit cryptic and there could be errors. Shout if there's
any bits that don't make sense.
i know you didn't want to actually change much of the spec, but i would like to protest at the continued inclusion of the
"logarithmic" port
hint. its totally useless. at the very least, the hint should be removed
and replaced by two other hints: logarithmicE and logarithmic10. saying
that something might be better viewed using a logarithmic scale really
says nothing useful. a more satisfactory solution would add "dBFS" to
indicate that the port contains values indicating volumetric or gain
levels. something like that.
logarithmicE and logarithmic10 have the same effect (loge(x) = constant *
log10(x)). But yes, I agree, its very wierd. I'm happy to ditch that hint.
the only thing where it does anything like the right thing on is
frequency, and there it is tricky as you can't *quite* go down to 0.0, but
specifying how close to is a bit of a crapshoot - it generally depends on
the sample rate.
Immediatly after the spec is finished I will publish an extension that
does real units stuff on controls, so hosts can intelligently handle dBFS,
frequency and so on.
For the record, I'm happy to drop features (many have got the chop), its
adding things that I want to avoid. It's very hard to test features
properly at this stage, so adding new ones is risky.
Paul, while I've got your attention, are you OK with droppping runAdding?
You're the person who most likly to have implemented it I think.
99% of my plugins support it, but it would have made my life much easier
if they didn't.
- Steve
9:25 a.m.
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 12:22 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
Paul, while I've got your attention, are you OK
with droppping runAdding?
You're the person who most likly to have implemented it I think.
99% of my plugins support it, but it would have made my life much easier
if they didn't.
Steinberg dropped it for VST 2.4, and what's good for the goose is good
for the gander. Am I mixing analogies here? :)
--p
9:36 a.m.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:29:30AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 12:22 +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
I always thought it was sauce for the goose, but google like yours more.
- Steve
Paul, while I've got your attention, are you
OK with droppping runAdding?
You're the person who most likly to have implemented it I think.
99% of my plugins support it, but it would have made my life much easier
if they didn't.
Steinberg dropped it for VST 2.4, and what's good for the goose is good
for the gander. Am I mixing analogies here? :) 
1:07 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 12:22 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:05:20 -0400, Paul Davis
wrote:
Logarithmic really can't go. If you bind a MIDI controller to a
frequency port (be it an oscillator or lowpass filter or whatever), it's
almost entirely useless if you don't know to do it logarithmically.
Same thing with GUI sliders. This is really important for us
using-ladspa-for-synthesis people.
I got around the 0 issue by doing the log calculation on [1..n] and
shifting down. Actually it even works for negative values...
-DR-
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 11:51 +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
yeah *cough* I did actualy change one thing, I droped the last clause of
the integer hint, because it Makes No Damn Sense. The bit that recommends
that you overshout the bounds you actually want, so that theres no
rounding problems. the host has to do that, the plugin can't second guess
how much leeway the hosts UI needs for rounding, and if the plugin rounds
to nearest integer it all comes out in the wash anyway.
Meant to say I'd done that, but forgot.
I've written a first cut at an
ontology/schema for the plugin RDF:
http://plugin.org.uk/ladspa2/ladspa-2.ttl
The term schema is a bit misleading, as it doesn't really enforce
anything, it really just gives you some hints about what to write. The
bulk of it is english text to explain the meaning of the bits that are no
longer in the .h
I tried to write it as clearly as possible, but the machine readable parts
might still be a bit cryptic and there could be errors. Shout if there's
any bits that don't make sense.
i know you didn't want to actually change much of the spec, but i would like to protest at the continued inclusion of the
"logarithmic" port
hint. its totally useless. at the very least, the hint should be removed
and replaced by two other hints: logarithmicE and logarithmic10. saying
that something might be better viewed using a logarithmic scale really
says nothing useful. a more satisfactory solution would add "dBFS" to
indicate that the port contains values indicating volumetric or gain
levels. something like that.
logarithmicE and logarithmic10 have the same effect (loge(x) = constant *
log10(x)). But yes, I agree, its very wierd. I'm happy to ditch that hint.
the only thing where it does anything like the right thing on is
frequency, and there it is tricky as you can't *quite* go down to 0.0, but
specifying how close to is a bit of a crapshoot - it generally depends on
the sample rate.
Immediatly after the spec is finished I will publish an extension that
does real units stuff on controls, so hosts can intelligently handle dBFS,
frequency and so on.
For the record, I'm happy to drop features (many have got the chop), its
adding things that I want to avoid. It's very hard to test features
properly at this stage, so adding new ones is risky.
2:52 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:07:23AM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
Logarithmic really can't go. If you bind a MIDI controller to a
frequency port (be it an oscillator or lowpass filter or whatever), it's
almost entirely useless if you don't know to do it logarithmically.
Same thing with GUI sliders. This is really important for us
using-ladspa-for-synthesis people.
I got around the 0 issue by doing the log calculation on [1..n] and
shifting down. Actually it even works for negative values...
But that doesnt give the desired behaviour for freuqnecy inputs, and its a
hack at best for dBs.
If you can hold out for the units extension (within 24h of the 2.0 spec,
hopefully) it will all be a lot easier.
- Steve
like to protest at the continued inclusion of the
"logarithmic" port
hint. its totally useless. at the very least, the hint should be removed
and replaced by two other hints: logarithmicE and logarithmic10. saying
that something might be better viewed using a logarithmic scale really
says nothing useful. a more satisfactory solution would add "dBFS" to
indicate that the port contains values indicating volumetric or gain
levels. something like that.
logarithmicE and logarithmic10 have the same effect (loge(x) = constant *
log10(x)). But yes, I agree, its very wierd. I'm happy to ditch that hint.
the only thing where it does anything like the right thing on is
frequency, and there it is tricky as you can't *quite* go down to 0.0, but
specifying how close to is a bit of a crapshoot - it generally depends on
the sample rate.
Immediatly after the spec is finished I will publish an extension that
does real units stuff on controls, so hosts can intelligently handle dBFS,
frequency and so on.
1:02 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 07:05 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 11:51 +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
Ah! No removing the logarithmic hint! :)
Specifying the base along with it would be a very good idea though.
Better to have a 'logarithmic' hint and a seperate 'log_base' though.
-DR-
I've written a first cut at an
ontology/schema for the plugin RDF:
http://plugin.org.uk/ladspa2/ladspa-2.ttl
The term schema is a bit misleading, as it doesn't really enforce
anything, it really just gives you some hints about what to write. The
bulk of it is english text to explain the meaning of the bits that are no
longer in the .h
I tried to write it as clearly as possible, but the machine readable parts
might still be a bit cryptic and there could be errors. Shout if there's
any bits that don't make sense.
i know you didn't want to actually change much of the spec, but i would
like to protest at the continued inclusion of the "logarithmic" port
hint. its totally useless. at the very least, the hint should be removed
and replaced by two other hints: logarithmicE and logarithmic10. saying
that something might be better viewed using a logarithmic scale really
says nothing useful. a more satisfactory solution would add "dBFS" to
indicate that the port contains values indicating volumetric or gain
levels. something like that.
6815
days inactive
6815
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
8 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dave Robillard -
Paul Davis -
Steve Harris