Re: [Linuxsampler-devel] Hi - Very quiet list - my first post

[Steve H. <S.W...@ec...>]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 04:30:18 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > A JACK app can connect directly to physical i/o, and can connect to
> > any ported part of another application.
> 
> So can a XAP plugin - only it's actually the host that decides and 
> makes the connection. After all, what you get is still an audio 
> buffer that you're supposed to read or write once per block cycle. I 
> still don't see why it would matter what API(s) are used to get 
> access to the buffers.

So, in other words, it can't ;) The idea is that the sampler should be
able to connect to hardware inputs from its UI in order to sample. From
within XAP you cant do that. I hope. Its not really a plugin UI feature
and if it was present it would be bloat.
 
> > The behaviour of a hardware sampler leads me to think of it more
> > like a jack application than a plugin. Thats not to say that I dont
> > think a sampler plugin is useful, obviously it is, but I think a
> > JACK sanmpler is more useful.
> 
> What behavior are you referring to? Seriously, I want XAP plugins to 
> behave as much like real hardware as is possible and desirable. I 
> think there is a design issue with XAP if it can't host a sampler 
> properly.

XAP can host a sampler properly, its just not /ideal/. If it was ideal it
would be JACK.

There are two use cases (it seems, from the windows world), samplers as
applications (gigasampler, ie. linuxsampler under JACK), and as plugins
(Halion and friends, ie linuxsample under XAP).

I think that the application model gives you more power and control, but
both are useful.

- Steve