ladspa plugins lookalike

32 replies [Last post]
antonvdh
User offline. Last seen 46 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-04-14
Posts:

Are there Ladspa plugins which look like enigma vst.

Ladspa plugin look graphic all the same to me no round turn buds.

greetings
Anton

antonvdh
User offline. Last seen 46 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-04-14
Posts:

Are there Ladspa plugins which look like enigma vst or a more graphical look.

philicorda
User offline. Last seen 1 year 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-05-16
Posts:

Have a look at the invada LV2 plugins. I thought they were pretty cool.

http://www.invadarecords.com/Downloads.php?ID=00000264

Ardour must be built with LV2 support to see the graphical interfaces.

antonvdh
User offline. Last seen 46 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-04-14
Posts:

Yes very cool.
Are there also this kind of gui plugins for ladspa ?
Or is that not possible with ladspa?

seablade
User offline. Last seen 8 hours 7 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-01-22
Posts:

LADSPA does not have a GUI capability, as a result you cannot have a GUI with the plugins themselves. This is one of the things people were most looking for with LV2 plugins.

That being said, the plugin host provides the GUI so what you see is what is provided by Ardour.

Seablade

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

@antonvdh

If you want some plugins with GUIs you can try these:

http://www.linuxdsp.co.uk

I wrote them as JACK applications so you will have to patch them into ardour as 'inserts' - I haven't found a reliable method of getting LV2 plugins to work consistently on all hosts (regardless of GUI 'toolkit' e.g. Qt GTK2+, Xlib, Juce etc etc). If you have any problems installing them (there are full instructions included) please contact me using the contact details on my website. There are lots of helpful people who could assist on this forum but I am very concious of trying not to hijack this forum with issues that are essentially to do with support for my software. But I thought it might be useful to post a link so you can try them out.

peder
User offline. Last seen 49 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-05-08
Posts:

antonvdh, please remember that we're dealing with sound here.
No matter how cool or dull a plugin looks it's ultimately how it sounds that's important.

And while "ugly", most of the LADSPA plugings sound pretty good.

antonvdh
User offline. Last seen 46 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-04-14
Posts:

Yes I now we're dealing with sound but when I have a few ladspa plugins activated it is difficult to recognise them apart.
And it can be an extra service.
Thanks for the link that is looking good I will try them .

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

Its also about 'usability' - some people (myself included) find it difficult to pinpoint a particular control in a 'generic' LADSPA GUI filled with many identical sliders whereas it can be more intuitive to locate a control on a GUI that resembles some real hardware. Equally, some people find operating rotary controls with a mouse to be counter-intuitive. It really comes down to what works best for you, and I would be the first to agree that some of the LADSPA plugins sound just fine. I guess I'm just trying to point out that 'realistic' GUIs have their uses other than 'just looking pretty'

antonvdh
User offline. Last seen 46 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-04-14
Posts:

Is it possible to redesign the interface from a working ladspa plugins.

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

The LADSPA plugin standard does not really allow the plugin developer any control over the GUI layout - you can only specify the controls you want and the host draws them. So how it looks and where the controls end up are entirely host dependent. This seems also to be true of basic LV2 plugins. LV2 supports extensions which 'in theory' allow the addition of GUIs and any other functionalitly you can think of to the plugin. The problem is that the host needs to know this functionality exists in advance - otherwise it won't be supported in the plugin. The main problem with providing GUIs in plugins is that a host normally uses a graphical 'toolkit' to interface to the X server to draw its widgets. For example GTK+ , Qt etc. The reliability problems I have found come from not being able to run a GTK plugin in a Qt host and vice versa - and are really related to multithreaded
access to the X server, its a bit complicated to go into here. In the windows environment you only have one GUI interface - the windows one provide by the windows kernel, so you can be pretty certain how you're plugin needs to work. In linux it's not so simple since you don't know which toolkit your host will be using. The only solutions seem to me to be either to run the GUI as a separate process - with some sort of IPC to the plugin code or to run the entire plugin as a separate process which is what is happening with JACK.

antonvdh
User offline. Last seen 46 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-04-14
Posts:

And only changing the color from a ladspa plugin is that possible

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

As far as I know it's not possible to have much control over any aspect of the LADSPA GUI. LV2 is better in this respect. A LADSPA plugin simply tells the host what controls it needs and then reads buffers of values provided by the host that represent the control values. It then uses these values to control its audio processing. The host is entirely responsible for drawing the controls. It may also help to think slightly differently about the way you use different types of plugins. For example, I find that LADSPA plugins are great for adding simple extensions to a DAW such as a 3 band channel EQ that doesn't need a lot of fancy controls - a bit like the basic EQ you might get on a mixing console. Then if you need something a bit more special, in a real studio you might patch in some outboard gear, - say a vintage compressor or EQ etc. The equivalent of this is to patch in a JACK based plugin with some nice GUI controls etc.

antonvdh
User offline. Last seen 46 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-04-14
Posts:

Ok but LV2 is also not working out of the box
Have to compile that first.

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

I don't know why LV2 is not enabled by default - that's probably a question for paul or the other ardour devs.

seablade
User offline. Last seen 8 hours 7 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-01-22
Posts:

No it is a question for whoever compiled the version of Ardour you are using. Enabling LV2 requires having a couple other development libs and enabling one flag with the compilation. Ardour provides all the utilities for this, but if the person compiling Ardour does not enable it there is nothing we can do.

And linuxdsp is correct, LADSPA, as I wrote above, you do not have any control over any aspect of the GUI. Everything regarding the GUI is provided by the host. Also as I mentioned this was one of the primary things that people were looking forward to in LV2.

Seablade

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

@seablade: You're right, if you are using a pre-compiled binary then whoever compiled it needs to have built it with the LV2 option enabled and obviously the appropriate libraries. Just to clarify - what I meant by LV2 not being enabled by default was that (unless I'm mistaken) the last (recent) version of the ardour source that I downloaded had the LV2 flag disabled as the default option, so if you just build it straight from source you don't get LV2 support. I think I had to enable it, install the libraries and re-compile it. Perhaps this is now different in recent versions.

seablade
User offline. Last seen 8 hours 7 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-01-22
Posts:

If you have the libraries available, by default Ardour will compile with LV2 support IIRC. But if you do not have the libraries available, or obviously if you have previously disabled the flag on that source tree, then it will not compile with it.

Seablade

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

I built ardour from source a while ago so it wouldn't surprise me if I had remembered incorrectly, I thought I had needed to enable LV2 support but what must have happened was that I had forgotten to install the libraries so it built without LV2 support. Then when I found LV2 support was not compiled in I enabled it and then probably discovered I hadn't installed the libraries when I got compiler errors.

vtech
User offline. Last seen 1 week 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-04-04
Posts:

What about adding some LADSPA customizability into Ardour? Per-plugin vertical/horizontal layout, knobs/sliders and maybe background color and the label size (Now the word "Presets" is far more readable, than the name of the plugin). It's true, that it can get messy very quickly with all plugins looking the same. Or do you think LV2 is going to completely replace LADSPA in the future, so it doesn't pay off to spend time on it?

paul
paul's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 days 3 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-03-16
Posts:

who would "customize" the plugin GUIs ? the authors? the users?

roaldz
User offline. Last seen 1 year 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-11-12
Posts:

I think this could be a good idea. Give the possibility to ardour to customize LADSPA gui´s, the devs or plugin writers can then make a standard ¨look¨, which the user can change to taste.. Doesn´t sound awkward to me..

peder
User offline. Last seen 49 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-05-08
Posts:

I really don't see the point in jumping through hoops to wrangle Ardour into displaying LADSPA in a pretty-GUI fashion when we have LV2. If you're so deperate for work why not port your favorite LADSPA to LV2?
And when using a mouse it's much easier and more intuitive to adjust a slider than a knob.

Also I'd rather have people improving the sound of the effect than the looks. The customer who buys the CD doesn't give a damn what the compressor looked like.

stratojaune
User offline. Last seen 6 hours 19 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-10-19
Posts:

I agree with Peder, in the sense I prefer to double click on the value in the popup settings windows, and type the amount I like/try on the kbd...

PLEASE, Ardour devs, what we really need is MIDI, not fancy GUI for a plugin that we have to manipulate, say 5 minutes for a song, if somebody rings the phone at this moment...

No agression here, just my opinion about what is important or not !

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

@stratojaune: Ah, I see where I've been going wrong :) I'll have to do some versions of my plugins without a GUI at all, and you can intuitively control them by manually editing the XML file containing the settings...

@peder: I see the point, and I suppose you're right that the customer who buys the CD doesn't care what the compressor LOOKED like, but then again the customer who buys the CD doesn't care what the compressor sounded like either - just as long as the end result is ok.

Everyone has different ways of working, I find a GUI easier to work with than rows of identical sliders in an abitrary order with equally arbitrary units as per the LADSPA plugins. Just my opinion (I am going to be slightly biased of course...) and I will concede that operating rotary controls with a mouse can be a bit clumsy but I've tied to make my plugins so you just click on the control and drag the mouse up to increase or down to decrease which I find works quite well.

stratojaune
User offline. Last seen 6 hours 19 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-10-19
Posts:

Wow wow wow Linuxdsp !

You're right everyone can use different ways to obtain the same result, that's -fortunately- how computing works...

Don't want to start a flaming troll here, and have to say that I use your reverb as an insert in Ardour bus, it sounds nice and not so much CPUs' eater, as I have said to you sometimes ago !!

Just said, that I use the kbd for popup settings in Ardour plugins, and this have nothing in common with editing XML file, come on... ;o))

On another hand, I think devs time is more efficient on MIDI stuff than producing GUIs, cause there's out of Ardour some real cool guys like you who are doing a great job with nice GUIs...

Are we in phase now ?

DavePhillips
User offline. Last seen 1 week 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-04-19
Posts:

I agree++ with peder. Some of the existing LV2 plugins clearly show the way towards the next generation of audio plugins for Linux.

And I agree ++++ about looks vs. sound.

Best,

dp

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

@stratojaune - I hope what was intended to be a light hearted remark didn't seem like a criticism of the way you choose to work - I actually agree with most of what has been said here, its certainly true about looks / sound - but I hope that my plugins provide both good sound and something nice to look at too. I just wanted to highlight the fact that some people find the GUI more intuitive (that's the way I prefer to work which is why I created them) but there's nothing wrong with LADSPA or LV2 as such. I just find it hard to cope with (for example) a LADSPA multiband EQ where its difficult to identify the controls quickly... .but then I'm easilly confused :)

qharley
qharley's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-03-24
Posts:

The real beauty of writing software like this, is that you can do whatever you like.

Your stuff sounds good too. I don't use it as much as I could though, because I have some nice hardware DSP's just begging to be used...

lowen
User offline. Last seen 42 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-07-30
Posts:

My two bits:

I'd like an easy way of getting my control surface's sliders and rotaries onto controls; perhaps I'm missing something, but a 'control mapper' function (with recall) would be nice when doing final EQ mixing, for instance. My surface is a Tascam US428, which does MMC. Haven't found docs on control mappings, though, that make it easy to switch between tracks and have the controls follow the currently selected plugin (or EQ for that track, or whatnot). I'd rather that than a slick GUI myself, because I find it easier to rotate a knob or slide a fader while listening intently to the result than doing the same thing with a GUI (for one, I tend to close my eyes (so I can better concentrate on the sound) while doing mixing, and that's difficult to do with a GUI).

Maybe a 'select this track's plugin mappings' button or some such (with that select button being mappable; the US428 has a bank of eight of those above the fader bank, and up to four banks of eight faders using the bank buttons) that could do such.

Or I guess I could look at hacking us428control to have selectable banking and pass MMC sysex's up to the MIDI layer, assuming that's not already done.....at least Tascam has some docs on that.....time to dust off my C and C++ books and look at getting my hands dirty developing that sort of thing... Just thought I'd throw that out here just in case this is already available and I just don't know about it.

fugazi32
User offline. Last seen 4 years 11 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-01-21
Posts:

I would love to see MIDI in Ardour!