VST plugin host?

[BobCain]

Can I include VST plugins in my schematic? If not, how am I supposed to do fundamental, computation intensive DSP operations like convolution?

[Embedded]

You can't use VST plugins within a schematic only create them. Convolution is a difficult one as it is very cpu intensive and lends itself to being hard coded in C.

You can do DSP functions in the Ruby Module on real time audio but it will be slower than hard coded optimized C. So the best solution if you have something special like convolution (I assume for Reverb) is to make a C dll and link it into the Ruby Module. This gives you three advantages 1) It will be as fast as it can be, 2) you also get some protection of your algorithm as it is hidden inside dll, 3) You can do everything else inside FlowStone to speed up development.

[BobCain]

Thanks for the reply. My need for convolution is not for reverb but rather for FIR linear transfer functions which require similar length for low frequency resolution.

I'm afraid that without VST hosting my initial enthusiasm for FlowStone has flowed away. To be viable in today's marketplace any modular framework requires it. It simply won't do to be restricted to the functionality provided by the vendor (or implementable via an integrated Ruby interpreter.) As you point out, signal processing must often be close to the metal and the VST offerings provide just that in very user friendly ways. The VST convolver I purchased and use does overlap-save fast FFT convolution with a zero latency FFT in machine language. While it is within the range of my skills and experience to do so, the thought of implementing that in C and assembly so that I can then use it in FlowStone via Ruby nearly gives me convulsions.

I've been using Plogue Bidule and considered switching to FlowStone after receiving email about it but without VST hosting that just just isn't possible. I strongly urge you folks to stop whatever you are doing and integrate a VST host (and OSC while you are at it.) Until then FlowStone, sweet as it is in many ways, just can't compete. With it your potential market will increase many fold.

I'll be watching this space and hoping. Best of luck. Within the scope of what it does it is a lovely package.

P.S. While I love the idea of an embedded interpreter, I sure wish you had integrated Python rather than Ruby. First because I already know it and second because its user contributed library is much richer for the numeric and signal processing functions one might want to add to FlowStone. If, OTOH, FlowStone's Ruby integration allows use of Ruby/Python then I can easily and efficiently bridge to Python functions I write (debuging could be a nightmare) and access the vast Python libraries. In that case my objection is moot. Does FlowStone permit use of Ruby/Python?

[sal]

Thanks for the reply. My need for convolution is not for reverb but rather for FIR linear transfer functions which require similar length for low frequency resolution.

I'm afraid that without VST hosting my initial enthusiasm for FlowStone has flowed away. To be viable in today's marketplace any modular framework requires it. It simply won't do to be restricted to the functionality provided by the vendor (or implementable via an integrated Ruby interpreter.) As you point out, signal processing must often be close to the metal and the VST offerings provide just that in very user friendly ways. The VST convolver I purchased and use does overlap-save fast FFT convolution with a zero latency FFT in machine language. While it is within the range of my skills and experience to do so, the thought of implementing that in C and assembly so that I can then use it in FlowStone via Ruby nearly gives me convulsions.

I've been using Plogue Bidule and considered switching to FlowStone after receiving email about it but without VST hosting that just just isn't possible. I strongly urge you folks to stop whatever you are doing and integrate a VST host (and OSC while you are at it.) Until then FlowStone, sweet as it is in many ways, just can't compete. With it your potential market will increase many fold.

I'll be watching this space and hoping. Best of luck. Within the scope of what it does it is a lovely package.

P.S. While I love the idea of an embedded interpreter, I sure wish you had integrated Python rather than Ruby. First because I already know it and second because its user contributed library is much richer for the numeric and signal processing functions one might want to add to FlowStone. If, OTOH, FlowStone's Ruby integration allows use of Ruby/Python then I can easily and efficiently bridge to Python functions I write (debuging could be a nightmare) and access the vast Python libraries. In that case my objection is moot. Does FlowStone permit use of Ruby/Python?

i agree about python, it is better than ruby for desktop usage and it works while ruby is full of bugs and not well implemented in flowstone and also the timing precision is not fully solved, because the ruby interpreter cannot handle too much data as needed to work at audio rates.
If you need vst integration, it is possible by using synthedit and using an additional tool you can also export your vst embedding other vst's, also there is an interesting application called usine that can load vst instruments and then embed them inside a new vst and it has OSC support too.

[BobCain]

i agree about python, it is better than ruby for desktop usage and it works while ruby is full of bugs and not well implemented in flowstone and also the timing precision is not fully solved, because the ruby interpreter cannot handle too much data as needed to work at audio rates.

I didn't know that but if, as I hope, the Ruby integration includes the ability to utilize Ruby/Python

http://www.goto.info.waseda.ac.jp/~fuku ... index.html

(which I think is just a Ruby GEM (library)) then Python can be fully utilized in its place. All that is needed to use Python is to write a Ruby function which, using Ruby/Python, passes input parameters to the real implementation of the function in Python. (This could pretty easily be built in to FlowStone and done automatically if FlowStone wants to advertize both Ruby and Python.)

Again, support, can Ruby/Python be used in FlowStone's Ruby?

If you need vst integration, it is possible by using synthedit and using an additional tool you can also export your vst embedding other vst's, also there is an interesting application called usine that can load vst instruments and then embed them inside a new vst and it has OSC support too.

Sorry, I didn't follow that. Could you explain a bit more? To use FlowStone I need to somehow be able to embed VST blocks in a schematic, not the other way around which is what I think you are suggesting.

[MyDogRamsey]

Bob..
Go to the Synthmaker forum and search for MYCO. Myco did convolution in synthmaker, and AcmeBargig has a set of freeware cabinets that use convolution done in synthmaker..
It is CPU intensive, but it can be done..Go get the OSM file at the forum before they delete the forum ..Ronald Passion made an improvement to Myco's original convolver..So look for that as well..Hope that helps..

[sal]

I didn't know that but if, as I hope, the Ruby integration includes the ability to utilize Ruby/Python

http://www.goto.info.waseda.ac.jp/~fuku ... index.html

(which I think is just a Ruby GEM (library)) then Python can be fully utilized in its place. All that is needed to use Python is to write a Ruby function which, using Ruby/Python, passes input parameters to the real implementation of the function in Python. (This could pretty easily be built in to FlowStone and done automatically if FlowStone wants to advertize both Ruby and Python.)

Again, support, can Ruby/Python be used in FlowStone's Ruby?

what is a little bit hidden in the flowstone descritpion, is that its ruby part is limited.
You cannot install gems as you usually do with ruby and the available functionality is limited.
This is a post where i asked how to use gems and even following that procedure, most of them don't work:
http://www.dsprobotics.com/support/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=399&p=1144&hilit=gem#p1144
then flowstone team said that it is because of ruby is full of bugs under windows, but i tried with gems that under windows are working, so there is something to fix about the ruby integration.

Sorry, I didn't follow that. Could you explain a bit more? To use FlowStone I need to somehow be able to embed VST blocks in a schematic, not the other way around which is what I think you are suggesting.

i understood that you want to load vst's inside flowstone, but this is not available at the moment, so i suggested you to use some other software similar to flowstone that can load vst's.

[MyDogRamsey]

I never understood why Malc and jorge never allowed the loading of VST plugs?

[infuzion]

...then flowstone team said that it is because of ruby is full of bugs under windows, but i tried with gems that under windows are working, so there is something to fix about the ruby integration.

I think you caught them in a lie. Ruby has been running in Windows for years, & gems is a part of that. In fact much of Ruby's core will be split into gems for Ruby v2.0, so I'm sure they will ensure Ruby gems works 100% in Windoze.

I never understood why Malc and jorge never allowed the loading of VST plugs?

Actually you could in a 8 year old beta version of SM, & was quickly removed. But think about it; take a $400 VST, load it into SM, make a new skin, export both your skin wrapped around the $400 VST, & sell your new skin that is hiding someone else's $400 VST for $100.

[tor]

this could easily be avoided if FS/SM did not hide the original gui. when you open a plugin or an exe file containing another VST the other VST would open in its own window