DAW construction kit

DSP, Plug-in and Host development discussion.
KVRist
135 posts since 18 Mar, 2012

Post Thu May 06, 2021 3:27 am

An open standard for assembling DAWs could be useful.

A DAW can be considered as the interaction of components such as:


- Mixer
- X plugin format handler
- Y plugin format handler
- Z plugin format handler
- ...
- Clip layout panel (song timeline)
- Wave editor
- Midi clip editor

and so on.

The open standard would specify the conditions to be met so that your wonderful component could be integrated in whatever barebone DAW.

In other words, a DAW could be (even dynamically) constructed starting from a barebone DAW by loading your favorite components. Components could be either self made or from third parties.

KVRist

Topic Starter

135 posts since 18 Mar, 2012

Post Thu May 06, 2021 3:30 am

What do you, daw users, think about DAW construction kits ?

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=564851&p=8103262#p8103262

KVRAF
28836 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany

Post Thu May 06, 2021 3:32 am

Nothing.

But, why do you need two threads?
Plugins and a DAW. On an operating system. Which runs on a computer.

KVRist

Topic Starter

135 posts since 18 Mar, 2012

Post Thu May 06, 2021 3:35 am

One for the developers' view.
One for the users' view.

User avatar
addled muppet weed
80763 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass

Post Thu May 06, 2021 3:36 am

do i look like a builder?
is it the bum crack? i just need a belt.

User avatar
addled muppet weed
80763 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass

Post Thu May 06, 2021 3:37 am

chk071 wrote: ↑
Thu May 06, 2021 3:32 am
Nothing.

But, why do you need two threads?
this one for serious replies the other for fun :D

KVRist

Topic Starter

135 posts since 18 Mar, 2012

Post Thu May 06, 2021 3:55 am

vurt wrote: ↑
Thu May 06, 2021 3:36 am
do i look like a builder?
is it the bum crack? i just need a belt.
To develop a DAW you need a compiler, first. Then if you don't want to start from scratch, you could use some third party components. In this way (hopefully) you could get started in a few months, rather than some year.

What's belt? A new programming language for a new OS called Bum Crack?

User avatar
KVRAF
9432 posts since 4 Jan, 2017 from Warsaw, Poland

Post Thu May 06, 2021 3:57 am

bitwise wrote: ↑
Thu May 06, 2021 3:30 am
What do you, daw users, think about DAW construction kits ?

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=564851&p=8103262#p8103262
On paper it sounds interesting, but in practice the HOW certain feature is implemented and HOW it works with everything else decides about DAWs' appeal. It would be really difficult to build an environment covering e.g. different "flavours" of sequencers, mixers, device chains, etc. And if there would only be one of each, then what's the point? I don't have to build a DAW that has e.g. musical notation and video track removed - I don't mind they're there in S1 or Cubase, I just never use them.
Music tech enthusiast.
DAW, VST & hardware hoarder.
My "music": https://soundcloud.com/antic604

KVRist

Topic Starter

135 posts since 18 Mar, 2012

Post Thu May 06, 2021 4:17 am

antic604 wrote: ↑
Thu May 06, 2021 3:57 am
bitwise wrote: ↑
Thu May 06, 2021 3:30 am
What do you, daw users, think about DAW construction kits ?

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=564851&p=8103262#p8103262
On paper it sounds interesting, but in practice the HOW certain feature is implemented and HOW it works with everything else decides about DAWs' appeal. It would be really difficult to build an environment covering e.g. different "flavours" of sequencers, mixers, device chains, etc. And if there would only be one of each, then what's the point? I don't have to build a DAW that has e.g. musical notation and video track removed - I don't mind they're there in S1 or Cubase, I just never use them.


The main purpose of a daw construction kit is not the customization of the daw. The need of the kit is to allow the creation of a daw by developers shortening the development times. That's why i put the description in the development forum. Yet, users' opinions are welcome.

User avatar
KVRAF
9432 posts since 4 Jan, 2017 from Warsaw, Poland

Post Thu May 06, 2021 4:38 am

bitwise wrote: ↑
Thu May 06, 2021 4:17 am
The main purpose of a daw construction kit is not the customization of the daw. The need of the kit is to allow the creation of a daw by developers shortening the development times. That's why i put the description in the development forum. Yet, users' opinions are welcome.
Yes, but that's my point - without ability to heavily customise the components (e.g. compare Reason's rack, to Bitwig's device chain to Cubase's inserts list) you'd quickly end up with n DAWs all working & looking the same. Like for example you could immediately tell a game was made in Unity in their early years.

BTW, is this just a thought experiment, or do you actually have knowledge & skills to pull this off?
Music tech enthusiast.
DAW, VST & hardware hoarder.
My "music": https://soundcloud.com/antic604

Banned
334 posts since 11 Jan, 2015

Post Thu May 06, 2021 4:46 am

don't get me wrong, but why would we need more daws if they're then doing all the same and why would one have the idea to just create a daw at all? especially since we can customize the current daws already more and more.

KVRist

Topic Starter

135 posts since 18 Mar, 2012

Post Thu May 06, 2021 5:30 am

frizzbee wrote: ↑
Thu May 06, 2021 4:46 am
don't get me wrong, but why would we need more daws if they're then doing all the same and why would one have the idea to just create a daw at all? especially since we can customize the current daws already more and more.
You don't have to agree. Some year ago someone asked for something similar and i remember it didn't gather a lot of interest. So i don't expect a lot of interest now. Developing a daw takes time and money and if you invest money for that, it must bring you more money back. You can't fail so, to avoid any risk, you do it like all the successful ones. But if developing a daw was cheaper you would have a chance to do it differently in a way that "hopefully" suits your needs and if it doesn't you can start experimenting again without rebuilding everything from scratch.

KVRian
758 posts since 3 May, 2005 from Victoria, BC

Post Thu May 06, 2021 5:45 am

There is Tracktion Engine: https://github.com/tracktion/tracktion_engine

You can get a DAW like application going with not much code.

KVRist

Topic Starter

135 posts since 18 Mar, 2012

Post Thu May 06, 2021 5:55 am

antic604 wrote: ↑
Thu May 06, 2021 4:38 am
Yes, but that's my point - without ability to heavily customise the components (e.g. compare Reason's rack, to Bitwig's device chain to Cubase's inserts list) you'd quickly end up with n DAWs all working & looking the same. Like for example you could immediately tell a game was made in Unity in their early years.
I'm talking about main building blocks which have a defined interface with the outside world. For example, you could create a Mixer Track Component which, internally may behave as you want, as long as you can plug it inside the Mixer Component flawlessy.

antic604 wrote: ↑
Thu May 06, 2021 4:38 am
BTW, is this just a thought experiment, or do you actually have knowledge & skills to pull this off?
I developed a DAW and, as i saw the time passing by, i realized that i hadn't event started to implement the feature for which i decided to start the project. So i spent a lot of time reinventing the wheel. And a new born project surely has lots more bugs than a tested one. If you could replace a single component in a well tested project, it would save you a lot of time and efforts.

User avatar
KVRAF
6528 posts since 13 Jan, 2003 from Darkest Kent, UK

Post Thu May 06, 2021 6:04 am

You'd be adding levels of abstraction which I don't think would be very useful. Take the plugin handler for instance; you'd be hosting a plugin and talking to it through the VST (say) protocol, have you read the VST specs? Lots of parameters and event controls to deal with. So you get audio data(?) from the plug, then what? Pass it through another set of protocols (your new ones) to get it to where ever you want it to go?

To me, it sounds like you want a fully modular host that you can add elements too. Bit like EnergyXT, have loads of sequencers playing at different tempos, pattern lengths etc feeding midi and audio to VSTs and inbuilt effects. If you wanted to add a custom processor just use the VST protocol. Add a VST mixer and route what you want to it.
()_()
(O.o)
(")(")

Return to β€œDSP and Plug-in Development”