Hi jonetsu, I'm trying to follow the discussion but I still can't figure out what you'd like to achieve. Bear in mind that I'm a user, not a developer - although not COMPLETELY clueless, so maybe I'm missing something here.
You talked about plugins that "apply themselves as a group to an audio track, to stems, to a whole session". That's what buses are for, unless I misunderstood what you mean.
You talked about a suite of plugins which auto-configure themselves based on track analysis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't require (just) inter-plugin communication, it requires that the entire suite is developed together as a unit, you can't just make different random plugins talk together and magically "make a decision together" - whatever that means - (hence Paul Davis' fist comment: "[to] do what they want, they need their own DAW").
And then there's the major issue that others pointed out: to configure themselves in a meaningful manner, the plugins must be able to analyse not only the audio, but also the engineer's mind to know what he wants to achieve.
> it is at the mixing engineer level. Not at the stage of personalizing the characteristics of individual sounds
Personalizing the sound IS part of and HAS impact on the mixing stage, it's the goal that no auto-configuring plugin can read in your mind.
> I don't see what would be wrong with having a set of presets that supposedly replicates a certain guitarist setup.
I agree here, nothing wrong with (good) presets. But that's something we can already have. Look at Guitarix for example, you can have presets that tie together different tools: compressor, overdrive, amp emulator, cabinet emulator, etc.. And you can do that because those tools are developed to work tightly together, they are like different parameters of one big plugin. And, again, I'm not sure what data would they need to share in your vision.
To me, it looks like you're pointing at the moon at noon: sorry but either the moon is somewhere else or I just can't see it anyway.
You keep talking about plugins communicating together, but to me it's not clear WHAT would they supposedly communicate.
You keep saying "making decisions" as if it would mean anything clear but, unless you explain it better, it sounds like either marketing fluff or bad-by-design auto-configuration.
You talked about plugins that "apply themselves as a group to an audio track, to stems, to a whole session". That's what buses are for, unless I misunderstood what you mean.
You talked about a suite of plugins which auto-configure themselves based on track analysis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't require (just) inter-plugin communication, it requires that the entire suite is developed together as a unit, you can't just make different random plugins talk together and magically "make a decision together" - whatever that means - (hence Paul Davis' fist comment: "[to] do what they want, they need their own DAW").
And then there's the major issue that others pointed out: to configure themselves in a meaningful manner, the plugins must be able to analyse not only the audio, but also the engineer's mind to know what he wants to achieve.
> it is at the mixing engineer level. Not at the stage of personalizing the characteristics of individual sounds
Personalizing the sound IS part of and HAS impact on the mixing stage, it's the goal that no auto-configuring plugin can read in your mind.
> I don't see what would be wrong with having a set of presets that supposedly replicates a certain guitarist setup.
I agree here, nothing wrong with (good) presets. But that's something we can already have. Look at Guitarix for example, you can have presets that tie together different tools: compressor, overdrive, amp emulator, cabinet emulator, etc.. And you can do that because those tools are developed to work tightly together, they are like different parameters of one big plugin. And, again, I'm not sure what data would they need to share in your vision.
To me, it looks like you're pointing at the moon at noon: sorry but either the moon is somewhere else or I just can't see it anyway.
You keep talking about plugins communicating together, but to me it's not clear WHAT would they supposedly communicate.
You keep saying "making decisions" as if it would mean anything clear but, unless you explain it better, it sounds like either marketing fluff or bad-by-design auto-configuration.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
