On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 13:52 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Fons Adriaensen<[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello all, > > wrong maiing list, really. but continuing on ... > > > I have an ardour mixer strip with 4 input and 2 outputs, > > and insert (post-fader) a plugin which has 4 inputs (A,B,C,D) > > and two outputs (X,Y). > > > > The signals at the output of the strip seem to be > > X + C + D and Y + C + D instead of X and Y. > > > > Is this 'documented behaviour', and if yes what > > purpose does it serve ? > > its certainly not documented, but not much is. it doesn't serve any > purpose other than being one of the several approaches one could take > with this somewhat unusual (but certainly not wrong) i/o > configuration. basically, ardour has the concept of "data streams" > within the signal processing route. imagine the situation *without* > the plugin for a moment: what happens to the "extra" data streams C & > D that don't obviously map to the outputs? executive decision: add > them to the outputs (and do it badly, by adding C *and* D to both > outputs, just for good measure). add the plugin to the situation .... > presumably ardour should know that there are now really just two data > streams post-plugin and that nothing needs to be done. but it appears > that it doesn't discover this, and this may be intentional but more > likely is just a bug.
This behaviour will be manually configurable (and smarter by default) in 3.0, FWIW. Particularly with (LV2) plugins that give more useful information about what ports represent. Cheers, -dr _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
