15 Nov
2010
15 Nov
'10
10:33 p.m.
I recently was writing up an article for my site about my experiences
with VST capabilities in Linux, mostly focused on the use of FST and
learned that there was such thing as Linux Native VST format. I was
about to begin compiling an addendum to my article but I discovered
more. I already knew about LADSPA and knew a little about DSSI, but
in the process I learned a little about LV2 as well. I'm trying to
find a source that can compare all these plugin formats side by side
and cannot seem to find one, so I might have to start compiling the
project myself, but I figured I'd ask the LAU list first. Why do we
have all these different plugin formats, and what are the differences?
Are there any more worth mention that I haven't found yet?
--
Christopher "Chip" Van Dan
http://www.van-dan.com
p.s. for those of you that don't know my site is aimed at beginners
and I just merely share my experiences without getting extremely
technical
15 Nov
15 Nov
10:55 p.m.
Hello Chip!
I think there is the Vamps system. I don't know, what these plugins were
developed for. I know, that there are problems for finer speech processing.
LADSPA is sort of LV1. At least LV2 was designed starting from LADSPA. I
think it is designed to also allow MIDI control ports and built-in UIs.
DSSI and LADSPA are very close, I think part of their API is compatible,
please correct me if I'm wrong. But DSSI also allows for UIs. I don't know, if
DSSI directly supports MIDI input or if it is somehow forwarded through the
dssi host. DSSI is mainly used for soft synths.
LADSPA and LV2 are most used for effect plugins. I don't know, if you can
implement synths with Vamps, but I think not.
Then there's VST. VST also supports built-in UIs. With VST you can have
effect plugins and soft synths (VSTI - VST instrument). I'm not sure, if
that's something different API-wise. So VST is something close to LV2, from
the basic point of thought. I think DSSI is somewhere in between the LADSPA
and LV2 state.
I know, that this is not very detailed, but from a user point of view, I
think it's basically true.
Kindest regards
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
11:11 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Julien Claassen <julien(a)c-lab.de> wrote:
Hello Chip!
I think there is the Vamps system. I don't know, what these plugins were
developed for. I know, that there are problems for finer speech processing.
VAMP is not a realtime plugin API. Its designed for things that need
to do at least 1 pass over the data before deciding what to do.
LADSPA is sort of LV1. At least LV2 was designed
starting from LADSPA. I
think it is designed to also allow MIDI control ports and built-in UIs.
DSSI and LADSPA are very close, I think part of their API is compatible,
please correct me if I'm wrong. But DSSI also allows for UIs. I don't know,
if DSSI directly supports MIDI input or if it is somehow forwarded through
the dssi host. DSSI is mainly used for soft synths.
DSSI was just a stop-gap measure introduced because LADSPA had no way
to support MIDI (and thus you cannot write a LADSPA MIDI-driven
instrument plugin)
LV2 represents some kind of version of the community's best-effort
attempt to define a better plugin API. It is hard to explain why LV2
is so superior because its rooted in a feature that actually makes it
quite annoying for anyone who isn't instantly convinced that endless
extensibility is the right goal. But it allows for more or less
anything, assuming that both parties (the plugin and the host) can
agree on it.
11:24 p.m.
On 15 November 2010 15:11, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
...
LV2 represents some kind of version of the
community's best-effort
attempt to define a better plugin API. It is hard to explain why LV2
is so superior because its rooted in a feature that actually makes it
quite annoying for anyone who isn't instantly convinced that endless
extensibility is the right goal. But it allows for more or less
anything, assuming that both parties (the plugin and the host) can
agree on it.
I followed you up to this paragraph. LADSPA started it, DSSI improved
on it, and LV2 tried to be the end-all-be-all (the final solution) if
I'm understanding correctly. Oh, and VAMP is sort of a side-show
freak. But can you explain what you mean here, "assuming that both
parties can agree on it"?
--
Christopher "Chip" Van Dan
http://www.van-dan.com
11:32 p.m.
On 16 November 2010 00:24, Chip VanDan <chip.vandan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 15 November 2010 15:11, Paul Davis
<paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
...
I think that the LV2 site http://lv2plug.in/ explains this point :
"LV2 is not limited to the features built in to the "core"
specification. Instead, extensions to LV2 can be defined independently
and used by hosts and plugins." A plugin writer can add capabilities,
but if the host doesn't recognise them, they will not be used by that
host.
Fritz
LV2 represents some kind of version of the
community's best-effort
attempt to define a better plugin API. It is hard to explain why LV2
is so superior because its rooted in a feature that actually makes it
quite annoying for anyone who isn't instantly convinced that endless
extensibility is the right goal. But it allows for more or less
anything, assuming that both parties (the plugin and the host) can
agree on it.
I followed you up to this paragraph. LADSPA started it, DSSI improved
on it, and LV2 tried to be the end-all-be-all (the final solution) if
I'm understanding correctly. Oh, and VAMP is sort of a side-show
freak. But can you explain what you mean here, "assuming that both
parties can agree on it"?
16 Nov
16 Nov
10:40 a.m.
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Julien Claassen
<julien(a)c-lab.de> wrote:
Not necessarily. Vamp plugins can be causal, i.e. returning values as
they receive the input -- though at the moment there's no standard way
for hosts to find out whether a plugin is causal or not. However,
it's true that they are never "real-time safe".
The real difference between Vamp plugins and the others mentioned here
is to do with their purpose. Vamp plugins are intended for analysis
-- they receive audio as input, but output structured data and get to
define their own structure to an extent.
You can in principle do some of the same stuff with LADSPA or LV2; for
example LADSPA plugins can have output control ports (returning
analytical results, though only very simple ones) and you can define
LV2 extensions to describe more sophisticated data. But Vamp is
actually designed for the purpose and has quite a distinctive API, and
different semantics in areas like plugin instantiation and
configuration order, in order to make it appropriate for this use.
Chris
Hello Chip!
I think there is the Vamps system. I don't know, what these plugins were
developed for. I know, that there are problems for finer speech processing.
VAMP is not a realtime plugin API. Its designed for things that need
to do at least 1 pass over the data before deciding what to do. 
7:27 p.m.
Hallo!
You can in principle do some of the same stuff with
LADSPA or LV2; for
example LADSPA plugins can have output control ports (returning
analytical results, though only very simple ones) and you can define
LV2 extensions to describe more sophisticated data.
By the way: would it be also possible to make "non-realtime" LV2
extensions ?
This would make it possible to code audio-restauration or similar
algorithms with LV2 - for instance porting the algorithms from gnome
wave cleaner ...
LG
Georg
---
http://grh.mur.at
15 Nov
15 Nov
11:30 p.m.
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Chip VanDan wrote:
I recently was writing up an article for my site about
my experiences
with VST capabilities in Linux, mostly focused on the use of FST and
learned that there was such thing as Linux Native VST format. I was
about to begin compiling an addendum to my article but I discovered
more. I already knew about LADSPA and knew a little about DSSI, but
in the process I learned a little about LV2 as well. I'm trying to
find a source that can compare all these plugin formats side by side
and cannot seem to find one, so I might have to start compiling the
project myself, but I figured I'd ask the LAU list first. Why do we
have all these different plugin formats, and what are the differences?
Are there any more worth mention that I haven't found yet?
If you're looking for a concise answer, you'll be
hard-pressed to find one. This has plenty of links to the
different tech... and each site usually has a FAQ about why
they're different:
http://linux-sound.org/plugins.html
Perhaps a too-simple way to view it is this:
LADSPA is like VST (but no GUI ability),
and only does effects.
DSSI is like VSTi, and provides a way to
make virtual instruments.
LV2 is designed to be the end-all-be-all,
extensible Free Plugin format. It
can be like VST, and VSTi, and more.
VST/VSTi's major problem is that the license does not
work well with Free Software.
There's still a bit of friction between fans of DSSI and
LV2.
DSSI is a pragmatic solution to the need
for instrument plugins that are analog to VSTi.
However, if some other class of plugin comes
along (VSTx), neither DSSI nor LADSPA will
be able to handle it.
LV2 is a solution that defines a basic plugin
discovery mechanism... and its core features
are to be implemented by /extensions/. The
strength is that LV2 can do "anything" (VST,
VSTi, VSTx, french roast coffee)... just
write an extension for it. The weakness is
that there is not (and will not be) a canonical
set of extensions. This has very confusing to
a lot of people... and some even disagree
with the philosophy.
HTH,
Gabriel
11:57 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Gabriel M. Beddingfield
<gabrbedd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
LV2 is a solution that defines a basic plugin
discovery mechanism... and its core features
are to be implemented by /extensions/. The
strength is that LV2 can do "anything" (VST,
VSTi, VSTx, french roast coffee)... just
write an extension for it. The weakness is
that there is not (and will not be) a canonical
set of extensions. This has very confusing to
a lot of people... and some even disagree
with the philosophy.
Surely though, a canonical set of extensions will eventually come
about, as those decided by the community?
People would go "This extension sounds better/more user-friendly than
this one, let's recommend it to those dipping their toes in LV2", for
example?
Just a thought,
Andrew.
16 Nov
16 Nov
5:07 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Chip VanDan wrote:
...
Are there any more worth mention that I haven't
found yet?
Another one - rarely mentioned on this list, thus probably even
more a side-show freak than VAMP:
RHSP consists of Rhost alongside a few plugins, all from one author.
License is a partly GPL, partly public domain.
http://sites.google.com/site/rockhardbuns/rhsp
I once installed them and found them to run and make sound,
but that's where my rhost-experience ends.
best,
d
4922
days inactive
4923
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
9 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Andrew C -
Chip VanDan -
Chris Cannam -
David Adler -
Fritz Meissner -
Gabriel M. Beddingfield -
Georg Holzmann -
Julien Claassen -
Paul Davis