okay, i'm writing down some raw ideas, not well thought-out: - some way to control chuck from an external program. could be OSC or anything else. - would it be possible to port Pd (puredata) externals to chuck? i had this idea, because someone ported Supercollider ugens to Pd recently. (Same question for Supercollider ugens or Csound opcodes). - streaming of raw audio over the network? (like jack.udp). problem: how to keep two chuck instances in sync, if they are running on different soundcards? - streaming of lossly compressed audio (ogg/vorbis, musepack or mp3). like pdogg~ for Pd. problem: latency off ogg container (raw vorbis could help, libfishsound?) - chuck library that could be embedded in other applications. maybe similar to ecasound. - don't invent funny names for ugens. Pd's objects for example don't have the most intuitive names, Csound is worse. Supercollider and Open Sound World do it right (IMHO). I guess this are not the most important features to work on. :-) Maybe I will have other suggestions later...
- VST(i), AudioUnits and LADSPA support - interactive shell
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. On Aug 6, 2004, at 8:02 AM, smoerk wrote:
- VST(i), AudioUnits and LADSPA support
- interactive shell
_______________________________________________ chuck mailing list chuck@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck
for me only VSTi is important, but i guess LADSPA is easier to implement than VST. 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.
On Aug 6, 2004, at 8:02 AM, smoerk wrote:
- VST(i), AudioUnits and LADSPA support
- interactive shell
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.
btw, there is fst, a library for running windows VST plugins on linux (with the help of wine). http://linuxaudiosystems.com/fst/
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... Cheers, Niklas -- Computer Music PhD-student University of Waikato Hamilton New Zealand
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.
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 22:57, smoerk wrote:
then lets ask the question: who is running chuck on linux on a non-x86 platform? me. There are much more people working on windows and OSX than on Linux (yes, there are PPC VST plugins). oooooh, yes. so? Doesn't mean there's a way to run them under Linux. At least not one I'm aware of, but I gladly accept pointers... 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. I absolutely agree. Just wanted to mention that maybe both VST and Ladspa should be the way to go, as that leaves everybody with at least one Plugin interface.
Cheers, Niklas -- Computer Music PhD-student University of Waikato Hamilton New Zealand
participants (3)
-
Ari Lazier -
Niklas Werner -
smoerk