Niklas Werner wrote:
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 06:02, smoerk wrote:
Ari Lazier wrote:
which of those would be most important? In its current state, chuck could most likely support vst(i). Don't know anything about audio units or ladspa.
LADSPA is much more important, because it will run on any architecture Linux runs on, whereas wine/VST only runs on x86...
then lets ask the question: who is running chuck on linux on a non-x86 platform? There are much more people working on windows and OSX than on Linux (yes, there are PPC VST plugins). I have nothing against LADSPA support and i guess it's much simpler to add LADSPA support on Linux than VST on Windows or OSX. LADSPA is a very simple interface. Question of importance is the question of which plugins you want to use. If you want to use commercial stuff, there is no way around VST (or Audio Units), until we have GMPI in a few years.