[PD] oldschool rave synths

Chuckk Hubbard badmuthahubbard at gmail.com
Fri Mar 16 20:41:46 CET 2007

On 3/17/07, padawan12 <padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:06:37 -0400
> "Chuckk Hubbard" <badmuthahubbard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What what was?  The Csound opcode?
> No the book on stats for music applications.

Alas, it is merely a probability textbook with a little more detail
than the one we're using in class; it isn't geared towards music.

> > I do think of it as overkill for synthesis purposes, but people use
> > Csound for lots of other purposes.  I guess for algorithmic
> > composition that kind of specificity is indispensible.
> I'd argue for its audio precision, but then it's not realtime (by design)
> in the same way that Pd is. Not sure what control stuff you could do in
> csound that you couldn't in Pd (?) Never really loved the score<->orchestra
> dichotomy either, without that wall to negotiate I think you have more
> freedom in instrument design and in generation.

I love Csound for a bunch of reasons.  The score format is definitely
not one of them.
The csoundapi~ Pd object is awesome, though, and now supports multiple
instances.  At the moment, I'm working with a 4-movement "microtonal"
sonata I wrote with my Pd JIsequencer and translated to a Csound
score.  I find it much easier to control synthesis and production with
Csound.  I think just because it has higher-level stuff.  It's also
older and has more contributors.  But I bet for most people the bottom
line is whether they prefer to work with text or graphics.  I like
I'm not sure why, but it seems like the Csound and Pd camps are almost
mutually exclusive.



More information about the Pd-list mailing list