[PD] nusmuk_audio WAS: Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

colet.patrice at free.fr colet.patrice at free.fr
Sat Apr 17 14:52:26 CEST 2010

 In term of DSP processing I've found that Pure Data sound better than max,
 it sounds like if we remove all the unnecessary electronics from a studio mixerboard,
which is the good point, someone else in the list has already made a comparission and C-sound seems to be the most promising.

 But beyond this we haven't got all the stuff proposed for building also Music,
 like music score editors, or internals with the base for building a decent and light mixerboard, etc...

 all this stuff doesn't seem so necessary from an engineer point of view,
 I might be very wrong again, but to go directly to the point,
 because he knows where to look for in the patch.

The influence of this relationship over the music often have tendances to express musical forms
 where we hear technical limitations.

 I figure it's just a matter of time of developping, a stradivarius isn't made in decade.


----- Mail Original -----
De: "Alexandre Porres" <porres at gmail.com>
À: "colet patrice" <colet.patrice at free.fr>
Cc: "pd-list" <pd-list at iem.at>
Envoyé: Vendredi 16 Avril 2010 20h38:55 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne
Objet: Re: [PD] nusmuk_audio WAS: Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

> without a good media, we can't get good results 

Guess my point wasnt clear yet. I'm saying every media has its potential, there's no "good" or "bad", anything can be best applied for some purpose, even a "shitty" clarinet... it can produce sounds irregularly and with spectral content that other clarinets might not... 

BTW, this is a simple discussion about art and media and not about Pd, it is not even a discussion about taste, but I can feel in your arguments that you have strong preconceptions... you seem to have a strong fixed idea on how things should or must be, about your taste and aesthetics, and I guess that is just bad to mix that where it doesn't belong. That's why maybe it's so hard to make myself clear... 

>I don't tell all the world each time I use a pd patch 

why should you, right? Unless someone asks I guess. 

>It's not a problem of 'working' but a problem of 'sounding'. 

But Damn, it is you who's making the sounds... (!!!) Now this is completely vague, and it seems you are missing the point of being objective and is once yet again letting subjective aesthetical preconceptions or even something else speak up more where it doesn't belong. In order for this discussion not to be so pointless, you'd need to point out objectively what the hell you are talking about. I guess the thread has also been mislead, are you saying MAX or somethng else sounds better by the way? 


2010/4/16 < colet.patrice at free.fr > 

>Oh, wasn't the metaphor clear, really? 


>well, no problem, here you go then... once more... 

there you go 

>We don't care to know if someone says; "Hey, I got a clarinet", we wanna know what he is doing with it, in a sense that it'd make more sense if the person would come and say; "Hey, check out, look what I do >with my clarinet". The point here is to emphasize the instrument as a tool, a media, something that you use to make an idea come true... so the point, in the end, is to present this idea. the media should not >be the interesting thing, but the result! 

without a good media, we can't get good results, 
reverbs sounding like bathrooms were cool when Joe Meek used it fifty years ago, 
but now the situation is a bit different. 

>So maybe you need and want a shitty clarinet to achieve the objective you have, maybe you need a quite expensive one. Nevertheless, the point is what you do with it. 

The clarinetist of one chamber orchestra I've wrote for had to use a 'C' clarinette that sounded like shit to play all the notes, 
instead of her cool but expensive B flat, the result is that I don't liked the sound she had. 

(If you want to compare I can send you the files) 

>As I said, that are things you can only do in Pd... which is basically when you need to program something. If you dont see that, maybe you dont need it! 

I use Pd for other purpose than trying to convince people I could make music with it, even if I've made several pieces with that it's possible to download. 

>And since we need to program it, we are the ones doing the thing, Pd is not doing much for us. And yeah, you build stuff with it. So maybe you should not waste your time building things that are already there, >why reinvent the wheel? If you can do something in Pd, it doesn't mean it has to be done in Pd, or that is easier to do it with it. 

I use the stuff I've built with pd for show numbers, like modern circus, and I don't tell all the world each time I use a pd patch. 

>So, anyway, if you build something in Pd that does not work, it is your fault, not Pd's... if you built a clarinet in it that does not do what you want and need, maybe you should ask a guy who's good at >clarinet building... 

It's not a problem of 'working' but a problem of 'sounding'. 

>hope it was clearer now, can't make it clearer than that I guess, by the way... 

I do appreciate. 

>take care 

thank you for your effort in my understanding, but I still remain on the idea that pd is just a tool for learning dsp, 
but indeed it can be used for other purposes, 
maybe that is where the discussion has evolved, but 

when one knows how dsp works, I guess that person would use real developper tools to make his stuff, like a compiler. 


2010/4/15 < colet.patrice at free.fr > 

I would care about how the clarinette is sounding, if I or a skilled clarinetist 
can't make a melody with it, i would play with noises... 

Selon Alexandre Porres < porres at gmail.com >: 

> > pd is just a tool for learning dsp, there is no such project that show how 
> > pd is cool to make people moving on the dance floor. 
> Is that what you are really expecting pd to be or sound like? Well, indeed, 
> I disagree Pd would be a proper tool for that. And you are really wrong to 
> assume pd is only a tool to study DSP, although it is in fact really good 
> for that as well. 
> Now, you are missing completely the points of using Pd, and if you can't 
> imagine why you would need pd to do things that you can only do in pd, maybe 
> pd is not for you... no, it ain't a money maker for the dance floor dj... 
> I see musicians and artist that see why they need to do something in pd and 
> ask for help. It is common to have an artist creating a piece that uses Pd 
> without knowing how to program it, but working in conjunction with a 
> programmer. 
> And of course, Pd can be only a minor (but essential) thing on the 
> project... you don't need to reinvent the wheel in Pd, or just use Pd if you 
> are using it... there is no rule for that... in a sense that I don't see 
> there is such a thing called "pd music". 
> > who is the musician, Pierre Schaeffer, or Pierre Henry? 
> I dont see the point here... Of thousands of people who work with computer 
> music/technology, do we only have mostly Pierre Schaeffers out there? Is 
> Pierre Henry the Only guy who gets to be a musician? If someone is using pd 
> then he can't be Pierre Henry or many other thousands of people I know 
> besides him that are actually great musicians? 
> And yeah, nobody cares if someone comes out and says; "Hey, look what an 
> amazing I have here, I got a Clarinet!!! And I built it... or someone who's 
> really good built it for me!!!". All we want to know is, what do you do with 
> it, right? And we don't really care about the Clarinet. And if you don't 
> like it, don't blame it on the clarinet... 
> cheers 

More information about the Pd-list mailing list