On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:25:52PM +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:58:43PM +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > > > What worries me is that LV2 is *not* going to solve the problem that > > DR raised w.r.t. my "Moog" filter plugins. > > This particualr one I'm not worried about, as it's a know one, its all the > subtle things noones realised yet, something like a plugin that does its > delay in 24ths of a beat or something.
Aaarrrrrggghhh :-) > > So the relation v->f is *exponential* (not logarithmic). > > Sure, the LADSPA LOG hint couldn't deal with this meaningfully anyway. Not a problem. AFAIK, the hints do not describe the v->f mapping, but rather the one between the widget and v. It's plain linear in this case. > > - it has a degree in music science and DSP, > > - the meaning of the tags used is predefined by some standard. > > Or both if you really mess up :) I'd love a plugin host with a degree... > :somePort lv2:unit unit:octavePitch ; > lv2:baseFreq 264.0 . > > It's not beyond the realms of the possible to describe the mathematical > relationship between the octave pitch unit and Hz, but it's probably > excessive. A well-designed set of tags like the ones you show above would probably solve 99.9% of all cases. But you can't expect anyone to dream that up in a day. Which leads me to my main gripe with LV2: it was defined much too fast. In a normal RFC process, you present the problem, give interested parties at least a month to consider it and write something that exceeds the quality of a whim, and then take at least as much time to study the results and comment on them before anything is decided. -- FA Follie! Follie! Delirio vano e' questo!