On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 22:02 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Sure. LADSPA and (core) LV2 are identical in this respect. They have
exactly the same port types. It is really ugly and inconvenient to use
audio ports as control ports though.
> In particular, synth plugins (VCOs, VCFs, etc.) are fundamentally
Yes, but many, if not most, are usable in both contexts. Filters of any
variety are the best examples.
> One of the reasons for this is that 'multichannel' is not the same
A tricky one no one has yet tackled (anywhere) AFAIK.
> For a multichannel plugin (typically found in a general audio
Port "groups" and "roles" (within those groups) describe all this kind
of thing nicely. This is simple, purely metadata stuff.
> Another typical feature of multichannel processors is that the
I think there is more overlap between these cases than this implies, or
at least can be. A polyphonic synth *could* have a very large portion
of the processing time be common shared data.
There is probably an elegant solution that can cover 'replication' in
all cases. Any solution would require pretty significant compatibility
breaks, though. Maybe some day. We are stuck with single-channel audio
inputs and outputs. When I think about this sort of thing, I wish we
just had more "message" like ports, so we could add things like multiple
channels without having to completely change what you actually connect a
port pointer to. It also makes the question of whether or not to
replicate this control or that no longer a compatibility issue. It makes
a lot of things simple, as consistent computational models tend to do...
(All that said, replication doesn't seem all that pressing to me at the
moment, at least relatively speaking. Nobody's work is being held back
for lack of it that I know of.)
Linux-audio-dev mailing list