2 Jul
2011
2 Jul
'11
8:11 p.m.
On 07/02/2011 06:55 PM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
On 07/03/2011 02:24 AM, rosea grammostola wrote:
I wonder if it's true
that it is hard to write a LV2 plugin, if you have
a standalone and VST version already. They asked about a possible way to
'convert' a VST to a LV2 plugin, but iirc David Robillard was not very
enthusiastic about it. And he might have a point, VST is the ugly here,
not LV2. On the other hand, it questionable whether this is the best
strategy to make Linux as good as it can be as platform for proaudio. I
am very happy having Pianoteq for Linux, it makes Linux more valuable
for me as a platform for music production and it would we very hard to
come up with something like Pianoteq as a community and this is true for
other stuff.
They should release a LV2 version instead imho. LV2 is much better
supported on Linux then VST. LV2 is ready for it...
I'm not sure that LV2 is really that much better supported -- it has
better support in open-source apps (notably Ardour 3), but Renoise
apparently has very solid native VST support.
I'd love to have an LV2 Pianoteq, but being realistic, I know that
there's a good chance that it won't happen. I'm sure it's a lot of
extra work to implement support for a new plugin format, compared to
simply porting the existing VST code to a new platform.
If we want to encourage more commercial developers to bring their
Windows/OS X VST plugins across to Linux, I think having good native
VST support in common hosts is going to help. I know that's not a goal
some would share, but I'm personally in favour of having as many
options available as possible.
Hmm a selective choice might not be bad if that
available selection is
of good quality. I'd rather like to see some more quality LV2 plugins.
But on the other hand, I enjoy my Pianoteq version *very* much as I
mentioned before...
\r