<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/11/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">David Powers</b> <<a href="mailto:cyborgk@gmail.com">cyborgk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
1. I'm interested in sending ChucK's audio output into VST's, so MIDI<br>would not be a solution. MIDI would only work if ChucK wasn't<br>generating any audio, but what I want to do is be able to process some<br>of the things that I'm already generating in ChucK.
</blockquote><div><br>This is completely valid. I was still in my "using ChucK to sequence" mode and thinking of synths, not effects. I simply overlooked this and now feel silly.<br> </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
2. Relying on MIDI means that one loses a great deal of resolution as<br>far as parameters go, being stuck with 0-127. Furthermore, not every<br>host makes it easy to address a particular parameter of a plugin<br>through MIDI.
</blockquote><div><br>True, but it's my opinion that hosts should feature solid support for external controlers.<br> </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I guess, a good solution would be if ChucK could be extended with a<br>"Plugin" UGen, that would support both LAPSDA and VST (and maybe the<br>Mac format too), thereby allowing it to be crossplatform. Of course, I
<br>have no idea how difficult this sort of thing is.</blockquote><div><br>It would certainly be noble; I'm sure this would be extremely popular but I suspect that if it were easy to make a host that ran on all three OS's and suported all those types of plugins it would already have been done.
<br> </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">It's true, as far as the DestroyFX stuff, someone could probably build<br>similar things using the buffer UGen. Though to get that
<br>functionality, I guess we need to create user defined UGen's?!</blockquote><div><br><br>For that exact functionality you'd be bussy for quite a while but the general gist of those and similar plugins isn't that hard to get with some tactfull SndBuf manipulation. You just periodically set the buffer position to some known value and the world is you oister for IDM/drill&bass style stuttering. I suppose you could get yet closer by using one of the delays but I didn't quite get into those yet.
<br><br>Personally I think it's a bit of a shame that new plugins in that sort of style have such a big influence on the IDM world. Plugin support would be nice in general but I think that building your own micro-looper/buffer-abuse tool is far more interesting then the quest for the latest greatest plugin. No personal attack intended, of cource; Destroyfx is great fun as well.
<br></div><br>It's not that I realy disagree, I just think advantages and hardships need to be considered. "this plugin on that host" style discussions are quite common on fora like the Ableton one which made me suspect this feature would lead to a whole lot of extra questions.
<br><br>If it were all up to me I'd like real OSC support in the major hosts and something like Jack for Windows. That should take care of the whole thing and on some days I wonder why those things aren't here already.<br>
<br>Kas.<br></div>