On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 21:50:28 +0200, Jimmy Sjölund wrote: >So, who or how to decide what is good enough? There is no distinct >definition for that.
Would you add something that could be the tone control of a hifi amp into a mixer channel for audio production? I would use Fons' parametric EQ for the mixer channels, but avoid DJ EQ. I won't sort out DJ EQ, but while Fons' EQ should be a dependency of a meta-package "pro-audio", DJ EQ should belong to a meta-package "audio". Some EQs likely would fail measurements. I can't do measurements, but I suspect we hear when EQs behave unexpected when mixing. I wouldn't sort them out, as long as they don't do something harmful as making a host crash, but I would sort them to a meta-package "audio" instead of "pro-audio". Perhaps the plugins that belong to different meta-packages should be installed to different paths, so that a user could install all packages, but by selecting the path decide if they show up in a host. I fear that some packages already bundle useful and crappy plugins, so assigning packages to meta-packages might not be enough. Some packages perhaps need to be split into "good" and "bad" plugins. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
