[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
both.
I'm not sure why, but it seems like the Csound and Pd camps are almost
mutually exclusive.
-Chuckk
--
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list