[ardour-dev] issues with plugin in/out counts

Mark Knecht markknecht at gmail.com
Wed Nov 24 07:39:39 PST 2004

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:46:30 +0200, John Anderson <ardour at semiosix.com> wrote:
> 1-input
> pre-plugin
> fader
> post-plugin
> panner
> post-panner-plugin
> width-panner
> 2-output
> for mono -> stereo tracks anyway.

I'm not in favor of a width-panner. AFAIK I can do what it does with
the regular panner. It seems like added complexity.


> But now the 1-in/2-out is interesting. In a sense a panner is a
> 1-in/2-out plugin. 

For mono sources maybe, but not for stereo sources.


> AFAIK mixer strips on consoles are essentially 1-in/2-out (in my mostly
> theoretical understanding), excluding sends. (And excluding 5.1
> configurations, which I know nearly nothing about) So maybe using a
> 1-in/2-out mixer strip design in an architecture that handles things
> other than 1-in/2-out (as ardour does) is creating, er, cognitive
> dissonance.

This I agree with. Paul has created a bus & track architecture that is
N*M.  That creates opportunities. Unfortunately the plugin base is
more 1*1, 1*2, 2*1, 2*2, etc. To me these are different things. For
people who want N*M (not me) they may have limitations on what plugins
they can use. For people who work in a fixed setup, such as stereo,
we'll have fewer limitation. However, N*M shouldn't be dropped. I'd
suggest that a year from now the N*M folks will have developed some
really interesting plugins that don't exist today and are made
possible by Ardour's architecture.

- Mark

More information about the Ardour-Dev mailing list