Steve Harris wrote: >On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 07:46:37 -0800, Brad Fuller wrote: > > >>>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 would think it's easier than mapping gates. >>I have not ever looked at LADSPA code. I assume most people write in C. >>Today's DSPs, even 10 years ago, have a full compliment of C programming >>tools. Bingo. >> >> > >Not really, most audio DSP chips use fixedpoint maths, which you cant >use in C very well, and LADSPA plugins are 99% floating point. > Can you explain why you feel you can't use FixedP in C very well? > Yes, but coding for DSPs is really hard work, and LADSPA plugins wont > port over as they use floating point maths. I don't understand what you mean here either. As far as DSPs that have FltP: The 320 has FP, the 2106 has FltP, etc Do you mean they're too expensive?
