Hi Fons, 2008/6/2 Fons Adriaensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 07:22:02PM +0200, Stefano D'Angelo wrote: > >> http://naspro.atheme.org/content/epamp-draft-1 > > I've been (and still am) quite critical of LV2. But reading > this draft I'm inclined to forgive the LV2 developers all > their sins and offer them an unlimited supply of Amarone, > which is one of Italy's best and most expensive red wines. > > >> lack of interest to accomodate the particular needs of >> this niche by most standardized sound processing API >> authors; > > Maybe you could start by stating what those particular > needs are.
I already roughed out some on this mailing list. > I could write out a long list of what is wrong with and > missing from this spec, but I'm currently not inclined > to do so. But one absolute killer is: > >> Number of interleaved input (and hence output) channels. > > What on earth makes you think that the number of inputs > and outputs should be the same ? Read this and think a little bit about it: The API has been designed around the typical use case where a generic audio source is processed in a series of subsequent stages (chain-like fashion, informally speaking) and then sent to a generic audio output. In this kind of applications sound processing is a marginal task, while encoding/decoding are not (and doing some work on audacious has made that quite clear to me). It's way better to keep those things separated IMO. Non prendertela a male e buona festa della repubblica, Stefano _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
