bb.linuxsampler.org

I am not making any promises, but now that FLAM is out it is time to give some love to ls16, which will actually become ls1 and reduce its memory footprint, and qgiged will come next some time this year. As time allows, as per usual.

So, would it make sense to integrate optional FX into an hypothetical LS plugin GUI? Or should they be kept separate? And if it does makes sense, which of the available LADSPAs would you choose and why? RV? EQ? Compressor?

Again, don't get your hopes up, remember this is free software. But do speculate, even if it only ends up being just for the sake of it.

Luis, good to see you're considering improving ls16.
I can't speak for anyone else, but i'd say adding ladspa functionality would be a good thing.

Alex.

Sure, but how would it exactly be a good thing? How would it improve anyone's workflow as opposed to having the FX controls somewhere else in the DAW?

For instance, I don't think send-like FX like reverb work well in instrument plugins. Inserts, like EQ and compressors would be handy, though.

Perhaps adding an EQ and a comp inserts, with switches for turning them on/off and a switch for deciding their routing order? Which of the existing LADSPAs would be good, all-around candidates?

Luis, i'm not using compressors for my orchestral stuff, but i'd make a case for the C*EQ in ladspa as a potential candidate. Comes in mono and stereo, and does a good job of sorting out my somewhat boomy Contrabasses. I have to do this for each project, so to have it at sampler level and saved as part of a generic template .lscp file, imho, makes sense. For compression plugins, you might need to consult the headbangers.

Alex.