On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:19:45 -0800, Brad Fuller <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Mark Knecht wrote: > > > >Instead of a $400 2 channel PCI card we might end up with a $600 > >16-in/16-out device with hardware signal processing on board. To me > >this is probably a better place to go. If we do all this work ten we > >want to start working towards an architecture that will last. > > > > > Taking ladspa and mapping it to FPGA: how? and how would you do this > efficiently, if you could do it? A C function to VHDL function > convertor? (it's been a long time since I've worked with FPGAs. I'm sure > there are advances) > It might be more cost effective to use DSPs -- that is: more cost > effective in the long run for everybody -- mostly the end user. > > brad > > Sure - that's a fair comment and a design decision once some project like this gets started. I just brainstorming. However, even with an onboard DSP, which is most likely what Pro Tools does, we'd still need to map from LADSPA C code to DSP code. Is that easy? I don't know. Luckily I think we have many people here who probably could do good stuff if they thought it was important to do. Thanks for your input. - Mark
