On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 01:52:02 +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote: > > JAMin is not a plugin. Its an app. > > Think about it. > A typical fx plugin takes audio as input does DSProcessing to the audio > and outputs that. What does JAMin do? > The whole purpose of JAMin is to do DSP. And if you make a send in > ardour... :)
The point I didnt make is that JAMin /cannot/ be implemented efficiently as a set of plugins. The (majority, non-ladspa) DSP code is very intermingled, to make it run in realtime. You could argue that its just a bad example, but I dont think thats the case. > > I Disagree. We have 0% affordance, 0% appearance, 100% usability (not that > > there really orthoganal). You cant have affordance if you dont have > > control over appearance and layout. > > Usability - as each host provides it's own UI for the same plugins, > there's really no usability at all. The true beauty about VSTs is that > they have the same visual appearance no matter which application you're > using. That's rule #1 for having usability at all. And then there's the > question of smaller usability issues, this varies from VST plugin to VST > plugin. Usability is a very broad term, some things, like not glitching when you move a control or making each control have an (apparently) linear and a definable effect on the sound, are also usability features. Those are got by correctly mapping the user-facing controls to the underlying DSP parameters. Usually in a very non-obvious way, but they have no bearing on the appearance. Though I do think appearance is important. - Steve
