Subject: Re: [ecasound] native effects vs. LADSPA
From: Kai Vehmanen (k@eca.cx)
Date: Sat Sep 16 2000 - 10:35:27 EEST
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Rob Coker wrote:
> What are the tradeoffs between using the native ecasound effects versus
> using nearly all LADSPA effects? I'm considering making some effects
Well, actually there aren't that many differences. I guess this is because
I was involved in LADSPA development from early on.
So in most cases it's just a question of your preferences, whether you
like to code in C or in C++. Also distribution is an issue. Internal
plugins are always distributed with ecasound, but at least now, you need
to download LADSPA plugins separately. This can be changed, but we need to
discuss about this on LAD (mainly to avoid that all Linux audio apps come
with same plugins in their dist packages). If you specifically want your
LADSPA plugin to be included to ecasound distribution, that's ok of
course.
> would be most beneficial. Obviously, LADSPA would have more potential
> users, but if making them native would make them a lot more efficient (I
> don't know if this is the case or not), then it may be better to go that
From technical point of view, there are only a few issues. Performance
shouldn't be any different. If you want to write multichannel effects,
then there are a few issues (internal plugins offer more flexibility), but
these are rare cases.
-- . http://www.eca.cx ... [ audio software for linux ] /\ . . http://www.eca.cx/aivastus ... [ aivastus net radio ] /\ . . http://www.eca.cx/sculpscape [ my armchair-tunes mp3/ra/wav ]-- To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the message to <ecasound-list-request@wakkanet.fi>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 12:30:02 EEST