Support Jamulus as VST plugin

[corrados]

This issue has been migrated from Sourceforge. Created: 2010-01-27
Creator: Volker Fischer

The title says everything...

Discussion

Volker Fischer - 2010-01-31

This one might help implementation:
http://ag-works.net/source.wizards.htm

[vocobox]

It may be clarified.

• I presume it means that Jamulus should appear as input to other software, such as Cubase etc. This would allow to record a Jamulus session to a DAW locally.
• Or should it be able to ingest other software's output so that we can stream any audio software output to a Jamulus server? This would allow to stream a local multitrack session to a Jamulus server.

Both are very valuable!

I refer to existing forum discussion

• one of your note concerning your attempt to integrate VST
• a forum member note on the ability to use JACK to interact with Jamulus

[trebmuh]

We can already achieve both with jack. What OS do you use?

[vocobox]

I have MacOS 10.15.3 for programming, 10.12.3 for audio work. Despite I could not install Jack on 10.15.3, I can install it on 10.12.3 and when started, Jamulus displays Jack in the list of devices.

Beside that, when I start my virtual synths (Arturia) once Jack server is started I often go crashes of Jack server saying that the sampling freq was changed or buffer size can't be changed, but that's another topic I'll probably understand in Jack's user manual.

Thank you @trebmuh

[Snayler]

Some information regarding this:

pljones mentioned in the Facebook group that

The issue with the VST protocol up to version 2 is that the license prevents Jamulus adopting it.

While this is true, there is a workaround. As discussed here, one could develop the VST plugin support but ask users to compile it themselves, as it would not go against Steinberg's License. So the normal binaries wouldn't have VST support, but instructions could be given so that people can compile Jamulus with VST support themselves.

Another alternative would be developing a Audio Units plugin, as it's license is compatible with GPL.

[corrados]

For the records: The initial CR was from myself and it was created in 2010 (10 years ago :-) ). Back in the day I already started some implementation:
https://github.com/corrados/jamulus/blob/master/src/vstmain.cpp
https://github.com/corrados/jamulus/blob/master/src/vstmain.h
https://github.com/corrados/jamulus/blob/master/src/vstsound.h
As far as I remember, something might already work. But there is still a lot to do to make it "really" work. Anyone interested in taking over that work (i.e. finish that work)?

[trebmuh]

Note that in case of working on this, a LV2 version would be nice too. Maybe the DPF plugin framework can be of help here.

[WolfganP]

I'm sorry, but what will be the use case for the VST?
Get the server mix into a DAW (which is already achievable) or the client to feed individual streams to a local DAW?
Or the other way around (DAW output as a channel to stream via jamulus client) which is also achievable right now via ASIO routing?

[Snayler]

I'm sorry, but what will be the use case for the VST?

One possible use would be using a different DAW than Reaper to get the server mix. Sure, one could load all the tracks into another DAW, but the tracks would have to be aligned by hand, or you'd have to spend money on a DAW project converter (last time I researched this they were quite costly). That's the only valid use-case I can come up with, as routing the sound is already available through ReaRouter, Jack, VB-Audio, etc...

[WolfganP]

I'm sorry, but what will be the use case for the VST?

One possible use would be using a different DAW than Reaper to get the server mix. Sure, one could load all the tracks into another DAW, but the tracks would have to be aligned by hand, or you'd have to spend money on a DAW project converter (last time I researched this they were quite costly). That's the only valid use-case I can come up with, as routing the sound is already available through ReaRouter, Jack, VB-Audio, etc...

I'm sorry, but still not getting it. Are you talking about online/streaming DAW usage in the chain or processing of recordings? None of them makes Reaper a mandatory or exclusive app.

[Snayler]

I'm talking purely about recordings. The server creates the recording and the Reaper Project File. Imagine you don't want to use Reaper, but instead want to use something like, let's say. Pro Tools. You'd have to load the tracks into a new project and adjust the timings of each track by hand. On long recordings this could be very time consuming and having a plugin that enables any DAW to record all the tracks on the fly would be a plus.

I'm personally happy with Reaper, but this is what I gathered from the discussion going on the Facebook group.