18 Nov
2004
18 Nov
'04
10:55 p.m.
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:19:45 -0800, Brad Fuller <brad(a)sonaural.com> wrote:
Sure - that's a fair comment and a design decision once some project
like this gets started. I just brainstorming. However, even with an
onboard DSP, which is most likely what Pro Tools does, we'd still need
to map from LADSPA C code to DSP code. Is that easy? I don't know.
Luckily I think we have many people here who probably could do good
stuff if they thought it was important to do.
Thanks for your input.
- Mark
Mark Knecht wrote:
Instead of a $400 2 channel PCI card we might end up with a $600
16-in/16-out device with hardware signal processing on board. To me
this is probably a better place to go. If we do all this work ten we
want to start working towards an architecture that will last.
Taking ladspa and mapping it to FPGA: how? and how would you do this
efficiently, if you could do it? A C function to VHDL function
convertor? (it's been a long time since I've worked with FPGAs. I'm sure
there are advances)
It might be more cost effective to use DSPs -- that is: more cost
effective in the long run for everybody -- mostly the end user.
brad