by trogluddite on Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:35 pm
Welcome to the forum,I
'd agree with Philter's suggestion - a 'Master' plugin that hosts the GUI etc. and 'Slave' volume control plugin for insertion on the audio tracks. I would imagine that most DAWs can route MIDI flexibly enough to get the control data from master to sllaves.
There are two reasons that I think Philter is right...
1) Technical - one way communication (master->slaves0 is simple to route. Two way communication is much more tricky, and not all hosts might allow the routings that you'd need (potential for feedback loops). Sadly, there is no way for SM plugins to share a section of memory to store 'global' settings - so communicating via the VST host is the only option (only Reaper's JS plugins offer 'shared memory' as far as I know)
2) User Interace - having a single 'Master' plugin will make managing VST presets and control automation much, much simpler. The slaves would have no need of preset management etc. except for each one to store a "channel" parameter.
If you had two way communication between identical plugins, then loading a project would cause mayhem as each individual plugin's presets loaded all at the same time and started fighting over which one had priority.
Allowing for those factors, what you want to do is certainly possible. In some DAWs it is even possible to use audio signals to send control data (kind of like using a compressor side-chain) - but the MIDI method is probably safest for better DAW compatibility and to keep the routing as simple as possible.
Feel free to use any schematics and algorithms I post on the forum in your own designs - a credit is appreciated (but not a requirement).
Don't stagnate, mutate to create. Without randomness and serendipity the earth would be just another barren rock.