[Ardour-Users] A4.4: Critical bug using calf's lv2

Robin Gareus robin at gareus.org
Tue Oct 27 10:44:02 PDT 2015

On 10/27/2015 06:12 PM, Adriano Petrosillo wrote:
> To be honest I've always found this choice kind of baffling. I'd expect the
> Ardour developers to be *more* motivated to include a package of basic
> plugins (or integrated tools) precisely because the maturity of available
> plugins on Linux is low.

And who would write those high quality plugins and curate which ones
come with Ardour and maintain them?

The issue at hand is orthogonal to Ardour development and more of a
packaging issue. GNU/Linux studio distro have taken that job to provide
Ardour as well as a set of Plugins to end users.

So far nobody volunteered to look into a cross-platform set of plugins
that could come with Ardour. Only commercial vendors (e.g. Harrison)
have done this.

> By the way, any DSP programmer knows (or should
> know) that most (well made, at least) EQs, compressors, etc. should do
> similar things as the basic theory behind basic signal processing is well
> understood. 

This is not the case.

As with all tools, they're usually very specific. A good stonemason has
more than 8 hammers even though the "basic theory behind" hammering uhm
chiseling is the same :-)

There is a lot of differences in the details. To name some obvious ones:
Phase-response and behaviour near Nyquist differs between various
variants, but also the response when automated. Implementation choices
affect the outcome as well as exposed control parameters and the
available control ranges.

Similar for compressors: Does it act on the peak signal or on the RMS or
a mix? How is the signal pre-filtered or weighted? What latency does it

Then there are objective and subjective UI issues: from included presets
to the response of the controls, design/layout etc. which is why many
users favor one over the other.


More information about the Ardour-Users mailing list