Re: Presets etc.
Re: Presets etc.
- Subject: Re: Presets etc.
- From: Marc Poirier <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:10:34 -0400 (EDT)
Yeesh, you certainly didn't really absorb anything that I wrote, did you?
I'm not going to bother going through this, cuz you missed just about
everything from my last message. But to summarize, for one thing, please
stop making assumptions about me and my background and my jobs, because
every one that you made is wrong. For another thing, there's nothing
"standard" about FXB/FXP, that's ridiculous, it's VST-only, and for
example only works with VST's normalized parameter ranges. AU preset is
no better in this regard obviously, but has the advantage with *ehem* AUs
obviously, where a host is able to automatically find, recognize, and
utilize them. Obviously does not happen the same with VSTs. I'm not
trying to say that AU is better than everything else. I don't think that
correcting your ignorantly wrong and sweeping statements is exactly the
same thing, and mainly I'm just giving you suggestions of how to get what
you want, but instead you're refusing them and insisting on these
terrible solutions that everyone is telling you are terrible, and
complaining that the AU API needs to be revamped when it doesn't, you
just need to use it properly, which you don't seem willing to do because
of not wanting to put any energy into the task, which would be okay if
you would at least be honest and say that rather than making these
belabored and uncompelling arguments. Well, at least here you start to be
honest about that:
>
I (for example) simply don't have the time to do "special" versions for
>
each product, so I tend to look for a general solution that can be
>
applied to all formats.
But your proposed "general" solutions are not general, they are
VST-specific, and that's the problem. There are some places where VST and
AU simply do not operate the same, and special attention to each is
needed. I really don't know what the hell you keep referring to about me
saying "you have to do my way, I don't care what you want." I'm trying to
suggest a solution to make your users happy, but yes, I'm not suggesting
anything to make you happy.
Marc
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Michael Kleps [reFX] wrote:
>
Marc,
>
>
your replies get more and more hostile and I have the feeling that you
>
are defending AU in this regard just for the sake of it, without paying
>
attention to *what* people are actually saying. There are several ways
>
to do things and I prefer to have alternatives that do not limit me or
>
my users. Concerning presets VST can actually do exactly the same and
>
more than AU and I think having additional, usefull functionality is a
>
good thing.
>
>
Since FXP/FXB file-format is well documented, even a C/C++ beginner can
>
read/write them and since the chunk format is arbitary you can store
>
ANY data you want, so there is no good reason NOT to use it, since on
>
windows so many hosts support it and I don't think it's a good idea to
>
have 200 different preset formats if the first one was good enough.
>
There is a reason why ZIP files are still around although technicaly
>
better alternatives are available. FXP/FXB (like ZIP) are simply an
>
established standart and since we also sell soundsets, it makes sense
>
(for us) to support it further so as many people as possible can use
>
it.
>
>
I posted my comments to make it known to Apple and involved parties
>
that banks and writeable presets might be a good idea for future
>
updates. Saying "I don't need this" doesn't help anybody and doesn't
>
stop other developers from needing it. After all, I don't say (stupid
>
example, I know) "I don't need inputs so AU doesn't need to support it.
>
There are better ways. Generate the sound yourself".
>
>
If you don't need banks and writeable presets, fine, but I surely need
>
them.
>
>
>> Then you have different customers, but this could be from the
>
>> different
>
>> platforms we work for. Most of my customers are PC users which use VST
>
>> and thus they are used to the VST behaviour.
>
>
>
> I've done VST Windows stuff since many years ago, too...
>
>
Yeah, but when you give stuff away for free, people are less likely to
>
complain. I have over 3000 customers and they want something for their
>
money...
>
>
> Yeah cuz it sucks (who needs their song document data bloated 128x or
>
> however many "programs" there are in a given plugin's "bank" when
>
> they're
>
> usually only using 1
>
>
This is where you actually dictate people how to use your stuff. I have
>
tons of requestes for program-changes, because people simply want to
>
use them. Period. We also live in the year 2004. We are talking about a
>
couple of kilobytes for 128 presets. How much memory do you have? I
>
have 1.5 GIG in this machine. That is enough to hold 29541 BANKS of 128
>
presets for Vanguard so NO USER in his right state of mind could
>
possibly complain that having 128 presets in memory for each instance
>
is eating up too much of his precious resources. If a plugin needs more
>
memory (e.g. a sampler) nobodoy prevents the programmer to have only 1
>
preset banks (like Xphraze does).
>
>
Don't you get it? Being able to do that is *additional* functionality.
>
Limiting it to what you think is a better way, is only taking away
>
functionality, not adding value to the format.
>
>
-Mike
_______________________________________________
coreaudio-api mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/coreaudio-api
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.