Chris Cannam wrote: >On Thursday 04 Nov 2004 16:18, Russell Hanaghan wrote: > > >>what advantages might there be for the vst specific stuff in >>running this client as opposed to jack_fst or vstserver? >> >> > >The only really compelling reason is that you happen to want to use VST >effects or instruments as plugins in a DSSI host (which today means in >Rosegarden). > >Another practical reason to use dssi-vst is that it's probably less particular >than jack_fst or vstserver about what versions of Wine it works with, but >that obviously isn't an issue for you. It is also possible that some VSTs >might work in dssi-vst but not in jack_fst or vstserver, and vice versa, just >because of subtle differences between the hosts, but that's just theory -- >I'm not aware of any examples. > > That would be a big deal IMO! I spent a LONG time trying to get vst stuff working. In the end, the only 2 versions of Wine that have worked with jack_fst were the one on Kjetils site and the current version I'm using which is 05052004. >jack_fst will almost certainly offer lower latencies and better realtime >performance than either vstserver or dssi-vst. > > This is a deal killer if the latency is significantly worse. As soon as I get a chance I'll check it out. Thanks! > >Chris > > >
