On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:07:23AM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > > > like to protest at the continued inclusion of the "logarithmic" port > > > hint. its totally useless. at the very least, the hint should be removed > > > and replaced by two other hints: logarithmicE and logarithmic10. saying > > > that something might be better viewed using a logarithmic scale really > > > says nothing useful. a more satisfactory solution would add "dBFS" to > > > indicate that the port contains values indicating volumetric or gain > > > levels. something like that. > > > > logarithmicE and logarithmic10 have the same effect (loge(x) = constant * > > log10(x)). But yes, I agree, its very wierd. I'm happy to ditch that hint. > > the only thing where it does anything like the right thing on is > > frequency, and there it is tricky as you can't *quite* go down to 0.0, but > > specifying how close to is a bit of a crapshoot - it generally depends on > > the sample rate. > > > > Immediatly after the spec is finished I will publish an extension that > > does real units stuff on controls, so hosts can intelligently handle dBFS, > > frequency and so on. > > Logarithmic really can't go. If you bind a MIDI controller to a > frequency port (be it an oscillator or lowpass filter or whatever), it's > almost entirely useless if you don't know to do it logarithmically. > Same thing with GUI sliders. This is really important for us > using-ladspa-for-synthesis people. > > I got around the 0 issue by doing the log calculation on [1..n] and > shifting down. Actually it even works for negative values...
But that doesnt give the desired behaviour for freuqnecy inputs, and its a hack at best for dBs. If you can hold out for the units extension (within 24h of the 2.0 spec, hopefully) it will all be a lot easier. - Steve
