On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:41:10 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > my impression from reading the AudioUnits docs of late last year was > that there was no mention of graphics at all in the API. thats why it > seemed hard to figure out if they are in-process or o-o-p. otoh, i
Yes, the API doc I found after this had no mention of UI stuff. > i think that VST is actually much better > overall, but it has some rough edges that might, or might not, be > fixed in 3.0. VST is a lot, lot, lot more tested in the real world. Sure, but unless they change the licence VST isn't really an option IMHO. There are some things I don't like about it too. > the AudioUnit API still shows way too many signs of "Apple-speak" for > me. i can't really pin down what i mean by this, but whenever i browse > the API specs, i just have this pascal-y, motorola-ish feeling in my > gut :) ;) I dont see any pascal traces, but there is something a little alien about it. Do you know if AudioUnits is objective-c based, that would explain it. > plus there's that little problem with AudioUnits not being capable of > capture as of a few months back. somebody on the VST plugins list > claimed it was something to do with a kernel thread design issue - > quite deep, if true. I wasn't aware that VST plugins could do capture. I /guess/ thats a desirable feature. - Steve
