Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: David Robillard <d@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Saturday, May 26, 2012 - 8:05 pm

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 02:23:52PM -0400, David Robillard wrote:

> This is not a problem. If a plugin exists that requires this

Compared to the actual situation (without that extension) something
is gained indeed. But it's like paying off $5 if you start with a
debt of $10000.

> If, as you go on to argue, a fixed size solution is so superior,

I doubt it. That would happen if host and plugin authors

* strive to make high-quality plugins only,
* take decision on technical grounds rather than
opportunistic ones.

The first condition is contradicted by history - I won't
hesitate to say that 50% of all LADSPA plugins are crap
(somewhat better for LV2), and that 90% have serious
flaws that are more often than not related to the way
that control parameters are handled.

Your own argumentation of why certain things in LV2 are what
they are (because LADSPA did it that way) is an example of
the contrary of the second.

> It is, for well-known historical reasons, adopted from LADSPA.

I know.

> It's not "fixed" (You say that because the following argument

It was part of the 'core spec' last time I looked. All plugins
are supposed to accept a process call for any number of frames.

Which leads to an interesting observation: you extension
actually negates part of the core specs. So that is allowed ?

> You criticize LV2 for having control ports, but then say an alternative

Not for having control ports. For encouraging (almost mandating -
there is no alternative in the core spec) a way to provide control
values at arbitrary points by manipulating the nframes of a process()
call. There is a world of difference between

1. telling a plugin that at N frames from the current position the
parameter P should have value V, and
2. doing the same, while also requiring that the plugin outputs
N frames at that time.

My argumentation is that doing (2) is a bad idea, and even more so if
you consider that (1) is a silly thing to in the first place, at least
for the usual audio processing tasks such as EQ, dynamics, and most
effects. The exception is synthesis modules of course, but those should
have a dedicated mechanism for it anyway, or accept audio rate controls.

The full report included a detailed anaysis of why (1) is a bad
idea in most cases (with the exception of synthesis modules). It
is because it makes it almost impossible for the plugin code to
compute good parameter trajectories. A well-designed EQ, effect,
compressor, etc. should actually *ignore* attempts to control its
internals in such a way. So there was never any need to allow
arbitrary nframes values. The correct thing to do would be to
remove that from the core spec, and provide an extension for
finer-grained 'sample accurate' control.

> FUD, or solution. Your choice. I'll be over here solving problems if

Been there before, I get used to it.

Ciao,

--
FA

A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sat May 26, 2:43 am)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Sat May 26, 10:02 am)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Tim E. Real, (Sat May 26, 11:47 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sun May 27, 12:58 am)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sat May 26, 6:24 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Sat May 26, 8:05 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Stefano D'Angelo, (Sun May 27, 6:59 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Sun May 27, 8:26 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Stefano D'Angelo, (Sun May 27, 9:00 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Sun May 27, 9:33 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Stefano D'Angelo, (Sun May 27, 11:59 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Mon May 28, 12:17 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Stefano D'Angelo, (Mon May 28, 3:05 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Mon May 28, 5:01 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Mon May 28, 5:30 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Mon May 28, 7:48 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Mon May 28, 9:08 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Fri Jun 1, 10:09 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Jun 1, 10:22 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Fri Jun 1, 10:42 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Jun 1, 10:56 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sat Jun 2, 12:22 am)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sat Jun 2, 2:40 am)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Tim Goetze, (Sat Jun 2, 9:32 am)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sat Jun 2, 4:16 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Tim Goetze, (Mon Jun 4, 8:08 am)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Mon May 28, 10:41 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Tue May 29, 3:55 am)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sun May 27, 8:01 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Stefano D'Angelo, (Sun May 27, 8:17 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sat May 26, 9:08 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Sat May 26, 10:02 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sun May 27, 12:48 am)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Sun May 27, 11:16 am)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sun May 27, 4:05 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Paul Davis, (Sun May 27, 2:01 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sun May 27, 5:19 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Sun May 27, 7:56 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sun May 27, 10:33 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Mon May 28, 10:53 am)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Thorsten Wilms, (Mon May 28, 11:54 am)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Paul Davis, (Sat May 26, 8:23 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sat May 26, 11:08 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Fons Adriaensen, (Sat May 26, 8:59 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Paul Davis, (Sat May 26, 10:34 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, Adrian Knoth, (Sat May 26, 6:42 pm)
Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions, David Robillard, (Sat May 26, 8:27 pm)