[PD] default [output~] in Pd-extended

[Steffen Juul]

On 10/03/2009, at 23.27, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

> (snip) Many newbies are hung up because they can't get the example  
> patches to do anything.  A lot of the time, that's because they  
> haven't turned up the audio.

So to be precis and to check if i understand you correct: It's the  
word "dB" that is confusing? - While maybe the word "Vol" or "Volume"  
might clear it.

> If it is encapsulated in an object, then the complexity is hidden  
> until you want to see it.  Same idea with a osc~.  The osc~ C code  
> is far more complex.

I don't think that's a fair analogy.

I think it's quite clear, and i think most folk will have something  
like the same feeling,  that what is "beneath" osc~ and other things  
you can type into a object-box such that an object is instantiated is  
by the syntax in a class of "hidden until I want to see it".  
Abstractions generate another class and so does subpatches. The to  
later are maybe in the same class to some. Then comes GOBified  
abstractions. Then GOBified abstactions that use [cvn] tricks to make  
a "funky" interface. The syntax of the last is way different from the  
first and different from the rest too in the way that the syntax is a  
"graphical design matter". GOP asb inherent syntax from the Pd it  
passes though, some i don't think that is conceptually that hard.

Is this all blahblabbarbar? I agree it's getting hairy.