Re: [LAU] [OT] LV2 control for hardware device

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: J. Liles <malnourite@...>
Cc: linux-audio-user <Linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 - 12:20 am

--bcaec5555654c83afd04cf6f0320
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:42 PM, J. Liles wrote:

>

the metadata API has already been designed. it is, as usual, all about
someone finding the motivation and time to implement it.

anyone is free to submit a patch that takes the basic structure of the MIDI
support and "genericizes" it. of course, that person would have to decide
which branch of jack they want to support, so ... grrrr.

even so, *if* this device is really something like the UAD or TC or other
external DSP units, then i'm not convinced that a JACK client is the most
appropriate or useful implementation, though it would certainly be an
option.

--bcaec5555654c83afd04cf6f0320
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, N=
ov 26, 2012 at 6:42 PM, J. Liles <malnourite@gmail.com> w=
rote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 2:02 PM=
, Paul Davis <paul@linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:

On Mon, Nov 26, =
2012 at 4:50 PM, J. Liles <malnourite@gmail.com> wrote:

A 'driver' using libmapper [http://www.idmil.org/software=
/libmapper
] would be more appropriate than a plugin, I think.

for a control device, probably yes.=
but for a device that does audio i/o and/or audio processing, probably not=
.
On the other hand, if JACK had generic m=
essage ports and metadata as described here: [http://non.tux=
family.org/wiki/index.php?page=3DJackWishList
] the thing might be most =
appropriately developed as a simple JACK client...
the metadata API has already been designed. it is, as=
usual, all about someone finding the motivation and time to implement it.<=
br>anyone is free to submit a patch that takes the basic structure of t=
he MIDI support and "genericizes" it. of course, that person woul=
d have to decide which branch of jack they want to support, so ... grrrr.
=A0even so, *if* this device is really something like the UAD or TC or =
other external DSP units, then i'm not convinced that a JACK client is =
the most appropriate or useful implementation, though it would certainly be=
an option.
=A0

--bcaec5555654c83afd04cf6f0320--

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

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] [OT] LV2 control for hardware device, Moshe Werner, (Mon Nov 26, 12:11 pm)
Re: [LAU] [OT] LV2 control for hardware device, J. Liles, (Mon Nov 26, 9:50 pm)
Re: [LAU] [OT] LV2 control for hardware device, Paul Davis, (Mon Nov 26, 10:02 pm)
Re: [LAU] [OT] LV2 control for hardware device, J. Liles, (Mon Nov 26, 11:42 pm)
Re: [LAU] [OT] LV2 control for hardware device, Paul Davis, (Tue Nov 27, 12:20 am)
Re: [LAU] [OT] LV2 control for hardware device, Moshe Werner, (Tue Nov 27, 9:42 am)
Re: [LAU] [OT] LV2 control for hardware device, J. Liles, (Tue Nov 27, 12:30 am)
Re: [LAU] [OT] LV2 control for hardware device, Paul Davis, (Mon Nov 26, 12:38 pm)
Re: [LAU] [OT] LV2 control for hardware device, Moshe Werner, (Mon Nov 26, 12:58 pm)
Re: [LAU] [OT] LV2 control for hardware device, Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Nov 26, 1:07 pm)