On 01/11/2014 10:33 AM, Johannes Lorenz wrote: > Hi, > > I always wanted to use a vocoder in LMMS, but it is impossible, because the > LADSPA vocoder has 2 input and one output stereo channel(s). However, LMMS > only supports 1 in, 1 out. I wonder why, probably because the other thing is > just a bit more complicated to GUI-code.
Actually, LMMS supports either 1 in, 1 out, or 2 in, 2 out. Also, plugins with 1-in-1-out are "doubled" so that an instance of the effect will be loaded for both stereo channels. You can see this in that if you add a mono effect, there will be separate controls for both channels, while stereoe effects only have one set of controls (which is kind of counter-intuitive, but that's how it goes...) > Here are my plans to fix it: > * You have a control panel with an overview of all effects (like the > controller rack). I call it effect control panel (ECP) > * For adding those not-1-in-1-out effects, you add a new effect in the ECP > * Now, you can go to a channel in the mixer and push a button "add effect > input" (or output). This will ask you to chose an effect (from the ECP) and > then the id of the input chanel. > > As an example for a vocoder: > * Push "new effect" in the effect control panel > * Go to you mixer, chose chanel 3, then push "add effect input" > * You will then chose the new vocoder from a list, probably the last entry > * Finally, it will ask you which of the two channels of the vocoder you want > to use. Maybe you chose the "voice" input. > > Now this was easy. Some special things to care about: > * There are always 3 knobs on every effect in LMMS right now. For these > multiple effects, these knobs would be in the ECP, and *not* mirrored to > every input/output. > * An effect where not every input port is assigned is imo a bug. I think > before every playback, there should be made a test if everything is ok. The > alternative would be to set input to a constant 0 signal for each unassigned > port. However, this might sound bad for some effects and it will not warn the > user of unassigned inputs. What is your opinion about this point? > > Do you think it is a good idea to code this? Any corrections or is the draft > good? Thanks for discussion of this in advance. > > Kind regards, > Johannes If you only want support for effects with 2-in-1-out or 1-in-2-out, it doesn't need to be all that complicated. Simply convert them to 2-in-2-out by doubling either the input or output, depending on the case. This way vocoding could be done on the fx channel, by directing two instruments to the same fx channel and panning them to the opposite sides. It would only become necessary to add "effect inputs" and such if we want to support effects with more than 2 inputs/outputs. Are there enough of these kinds of effects to justify the effort? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
