[gmpi] Re: Topic 1: Audience for and users of plugins

  • From: "Laurent de Soras [Ohm Force]" <laurent@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:16:17 +0100

> Who are our target users/customers?
> Who are our target developers?

I'd say mostly DAW users. I think we should focus on it.
Of course this will not close the door to game consoles,
plam thingies or other applications. But trying to cater
for too much platform requirements is going to make GMPI
complex and not optimally designed.

We should design GMPI only for platform we know and we
develop for. How many of us are experienced enough with
modern gaming audio or today's hardware synthesiser
development ? Do we know every technical issue for these
technologies, the current market directions ? Finally, are
these industries really demanding for GMPI ? I ask these
question because I hear many people requiring support for
various platforms and uses, but I'm not even sure they are
developping for them. We cannot seriously produce a
standard for areas we don't master.

I (personally and within my company) develop for DAWs and
feel a need from musicians, sound engineers, sound designers
etc. as well as audio/music developers. The goal is to be
able to connect pieces of sound software (classified as
Hosts and Plug-ins), with efficient interoperability. These
pieces of software should allow user to work as easily and
creatively as possible, with a maximum compatibility. On
the other hand, they should remain easy and simple to

Because there are already many valuable audio software, I
suggest GMPI to be at least capable of being a super-wrapper
for existing standards, allowing GMPI-featured DAWs to work
with plug-ins from several standards in a transparent way.

> What kinds of plugins do people use today, and what will
> they want to use in the future?

This is not an exhaustive list, just generic ideas I just
have in mind:

- Audio effects
- Music data processors ("MIDI effects")
- Synthesisers
- Hybrid (audio effects driven with music data)
- Music data producers (automatic music composers,
modulation generators, simple sequencers)
- Generic sources/sinks (disk writers, wrapper for audio
and MIDI ports, etc)

I think everyone would agree with real-time processing
support. But should we make the API capable of off-line
processing (sampling rate conversion, different time
scale for in/out, non-linear access to source), just like
the off-line part of VST ? IMHO both keep a lot of common
features but are quite different in the functioning. Mixing
them seems dangerous, and probably confusing for the end-
user. Two sub-APIs ? How ?

-- Laurent

Laurent de Soras                  |               Ohm Force
DSP developer & Software designer |  Digital Audio Software
mailto:laurent@xxxxxxxxxxxx       | http://www.ohmforce.com

Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts: