On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 07:42:47 -0800, Brad Fuller wrote: > > 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? Because it doesnt have any fixedpoint control operators or library functions. > >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? No idea, all I know is that most of the audio DSP systems I know of use fixedpoint DSPs. Possibly due to cost contraints. - Steve