Talk:LADSPA

The original LADSPA email said "lowest common denominator" but intended "greatest common divisor" (via Greatest Common Denominator, don't ask). "Greatest common divisor" is in the header so should probably stand ;-) --Richard

The article presently (March 2013) reads:

LADSPA is unusual in that it attempts to provide only the "Greatest Common Divisor" of other standards.

– which is bizarre, given that the correct English idiom to describe something which aims for maximum compatibility by implementing only common features is – you guessed it! – "lowest common denominator".

Those allergic to maths can skip the following background!

The history of this term comes from arithmetic procedures for handling vulgar (or common) fractions, which can be explained best with an example.
Suppose one were adding 2/15 + 7/10 + 1/6; the procedure requires that one only add equivalent parts of unity, so it's necessary to convert each vulgar fraction to the same denominator.
A brute force technique would be to simply multiply the three denominators together (15*10*6=900), then multiply each numerator by all the denominators other than its own (2*10*6 = 120, 7*15*6=630, 1*15*10=150) and sum the results to get the new numerator (120+630+150=900), whence the sum of the three fractions is 900/900, which, on dividing both numerator and denominator by their GCD = greatest common divisor (alias HCF = highest common factor), "cancels out to" = 1.
Yet much labour could be avoided - especially in more realistic examples - by the simple expedient of choosing the smallest possible denominator that would do the trick: the "lowest common denominator" (commonly abbreviated LCD).
That LCD represents the smallest number of equal parts (or "aliquot parts") into which unity can be divided so that each of the original fractions is just a whole number of those (aliquot) parts.
It's found easily enough as the smallest number which contains all the factors of the original denominators (15=3*5, 10=2*5, 6=2*3, so LCD(15,10,6)=2*3*5=30); in this case, 30.
Having found the LCD, each of the original fractions is then expressed as a whole number of (1/LCD) pieces: in this case 2*2=4, 7*3=21 and 1*5=5, then added, giving 4+21+5=30 pieces each of 1/30, which is 30/30 or 1.

I leave it to you to judge whether the "greatest common divisor" or the "lowest common denominator" provides a better metaphor for "(things) having the most in common"; but standard English usage – internationally – uses the phrase "lowest common denominator", not - as this article does - "greatest common divisor".

However, the article is not idiomatic at present, and the appropriate change should be made.

If I hear no countervailing arguments, I'll make the change.

yoyo (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One Question would't be better to describe LADSPA as a library or a framework but merely a headerfile ? (just wondering) Cheers Stefan

Is LV2 in active development? --Richard

LV2 is done. Changing the text to reflect that. // Irreducibel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

competing technologies

Are those listed technologies really competing? Afaik they are pretty much non-existant on Linux while LADSPA is pretty irrelevant on anything but Linux. --Philipp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.205.216.185 (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. LADSPA is relevant to all those Audacity users who choose to use its plugins; and there are many non-Linux users of Audacity, especially on Windows.

yoyo (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]