<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Plugin-Development on Pi Stack</title>
    <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/plugin-development/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Plugin-Development on Pi Stack</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/plugin-development/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>JUCE vs iPlug2 vs DPF in 2026: Which C&#43;&#43; Audio Plug-in Framework Should You Actually Use?</title>
      <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-09-29-juce-vs-iplug2-vs-dpf-cpp-audio-plugin-framework-comparison/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-09-29-juce-vs-iplug2-vs-dpf-cpp-audio-plugin-framework-comparison/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Shipping an audio plug-in that has to load inside Ableton Live, Logic Pro, Reaper and Bitwig means exporting three or four plug-in formats, building on three operating systems, and keeping real-time DSP code free of locks and allocations. The framework you choose in week one decides whether that stays manageable or turns into two years of rework. JUCE, iPlug2 and DPF all solve the same core problem — one C++ codebase, many plug-in formats — but they optimise for very different teams. JUCE targets commercial products that want every format plus a deep widget library. iPlug2 targets fast iteration and permissive licensing. DPF targets lean, Linux-first plug-ins that ship LV2 and CLAP without ceremony.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
