No, not the song by Paul Simon. I'm trying to explore Cecilia 4.2, and I'm
baffled. Loading existing modules works fine ... but how would I start from
scratch and create something new?

The Help file doesn't seem to tell me what I need to know, but it's so
awkward to navigate that a page or two of useful information may be hiding
from me. Oh, and it doesn't seem to be possible to extract the developers'
email contacts from the Google Code page, as Google munges them.

The online tutorial appears to be about ten years out of date. Sample quote,
from near the beginning: "The CECILIA Csound Editor is divided into 9
different sections (or panes)." Well, no, in the current version there are
only three panes.

When I attempt to create a new project, it won't compile, and the Csound
error messages refer to code that isn't visible in the Cecilia window. I can
generally get around okay in Csound, so this isn't a newbie coding problem.
The problem seems to be that Cecilia is doing things behind the scenes that
I don't know how to work with.

This looks like a great piece of software. As I'm currently working on a
book, I'm hoping to be able to tell readers about it. Can anyone clue me in
and help get me up and running? Thanks!!!

--Jim Aikin

--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4716619.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hi Jim,

If you open one of the ready-made modules in the 'edit' mode you
should be able to see the csound code and how variables are connected
with the GUI widgets. It's pretty similar to the way fltk works, but
much simpler as you don't need to deal with the canvas and positioning
of widgets. You can I think also highlight a widget name and open the
help section for it (I can't remember now but there is a menu item for
this).

Best,

Peiman

On 19 August 2011 19:30, Jim Aikin  wrote:
> No, not the song by Paul Simon. I'm trying to explore Cecilia 4.2, and I'm
> baffled. Loading existing modules works fine ... but how would I start from
> scratch and create something new?
>
> The Help file doesn't seem to tell me what I need to know, but it's so
> awkward to navigate that a page or two of useful information may be hiding
> from me. Oh, and it doesn't seem to be possible to extract the developers'
> email contacts from the Google Code page, as Google munges them.
>
> The online tutorial appears to be about ten years out of date. Sample quote,
> from near the beginning: "The CECILIA Csound Editor is divided into 9
> different sections (or panes)." Well, no, in the current version there are
> only three panes.
>
> When I attempt to create a new project, it won't compile, and the Csound
> error messages refer to code that isn't visible in the Cecilia window. I can
> generally get around okay in Csound, so this isn't a newbie coding problem.
> The problem seems to be that Cecilia is doing things behind the scenes that
> I don't know how to work with.
>
> This looks like a great piece of software. As I'm currently working on a
> book, I'm hoping to be able to tell readers about it. Can anyone clue me in
> and help get me up and running? Thanks!!!
>
> --Jim Aikin
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4716619.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

> If you open one of the ready-made modules in the 'edit' mode you
> should be able to see the csound code and how variables are connected
> with the GUI widgets.

I can see that ... but I also notice things like how seven lines of code in
the INTERFACE section seem to be producing an interface window with more
than 20 controls. That doesn't quite make sense to me. And when I try
starting from scratch, creating just one control in the interface section,
it won't compile, and I can't switch to the interface window at all.

I also see, in the SCORE section of BreakBeatCut.cec, a score with only one
event, which has a p3 of [total_time]. This raises the immediate question
... where is that value defined? It's not visible on my screen, but it must
be getting defined somewhere. Clearly, then, Cecilia is doing stuff behind
the scenes. I would like to understand what it's doing.

What I'm looking for are not examples to study. What I'm looking for is a
step-by-step explanation of how to start from scratch, and how the program
does what it does. Does such documentation exist?

--JA


--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4716916.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I think some value are defined internally as macros, so total time is
probably one of those. You can therefor use it freely (the total
duration can be defined in the interface).

Which one of the modules has more than 20 widgets? If you are
referring to the post processors (such as the reverb) then I think
they show up by default anyway.

Can you send a screenshot of this page and the interface (I haven't
got Cecilia installed) and I can point out what each element is doing.

Best,

Peiman


On 19 August 2011 21:18, Jim Aikin  wrote:
>> If you open one of the ready-made modules in the 'edit' mode you
>> should be able to see the csound code and how variables are connected
>> with the GUI widgets.
>
> I can see that ... but I also notice things like how seven lines of code in
> the INTERFACE section seem to be producing an interface window with more
> than 20 controls. That doesn't quite make sense to me. And when I try
> starting from scratch, creating just one control in the interface section,
> it won't compile, and I can't switch to the interface window at all.
>
> I also see, in the SCORE section of BreakBeatCut.cec, a score with only one
> event, which has a p3 of [total_time]. This raises the immediate question
> ... where is that value defined? It's not visible on my screen, but it must
> be getting defined somewhere. Clearly, then, Cecilia is doing stuff behind
> the scenes. I would like to understand what it's doing.
>
> What I'm looking for are not examples to study. What I'm looking for is a
> step-by-step explanation of how to start from scratch, and how the program
> does what it does. Does such documentation exist?
>
> --JA
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4716916.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

> If you open one of the ready-made modules in the 'edit' mode you
> should be able to see the csound code and how variables are connected
> with the GUI widgets.

As a tutorial procedure, this is proving less enlightening than one might
hope. I've opened MultiModeFilter (and saved it under a new name). I can
pretty well see what this line in the INTERFACE panel is doing:

cslider mix -label Dry / Wet -res float -min 0 -max 100 -unit %  -init 100
-ori v -col blue

It creates a slider labelled "Dry / Wet". I can see that slider in the UI
panel. But when I comment that line out, save the file, and start playback,
nothing changes. The slider is still there, and it still functions.
Evidently the Cecilia code hasn't been recompiled, but I don't see a command
in the menus for recompiling it.

Also, the audio file I've loaded into MultiModeFilter stops playing after 30
seconds. There is no obvious way to lengthen the amount of audio that
MultiModeFilter will load.

The meta-observation or meta-question that I'm driving at here is this: Is
the only way to learn Cecilia to post questions to the Csound list, one or
two questions at a time, and hope someone answers them? Or is there a good,
thorough document somewhere that explains all this stuff? There's no need
for me to keep posting questions if I can learn what I need to know by
studying a document!

--Jim Aikin


--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4718718.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hi Jim,

There is a menu command for reinitiating the module that should redraw
the GUI. There is also a pop-up window next to the input file dialogue
for changing the duration.

The playback does not change the interface as that only controls the
csound rendering. You need to reinitiate the module to redraw the
widget elements.

As for the tutorial, have you not seen the documentation that you can
access from the help menu? That proved sufficient for me personally to
get started.

Best,

Peiman


On 20 August 2011 16:55, Jim Aikin  wrote:
>> If you open one of the ready-made modules in the 'edit' mode you
>> should be able to see the csound code and how variables are connected
>> with the GUI widgets.
>
> As a tutorial procedure, this is proving less enlightening than one might
> hope. I've opened MultiModeFilter (and saved it under a new name). I can
> pretty well see what this line in the INTERFACE panel is doing:
>
> cslider mix -label Dry / Wet -res float -min 0 -max 100 -unit %  -init 100
> -ori v -col blue
>
> It creates a slider labelled "Dry / Wet". I can see that slider in the UI
> panel. But when I comment that line out, save the file, and start playback,
> nothing changes. The slider is still there, and it still functions.
> Evidently the Cecilia code hasn't been recompiled, but I don't see a command
> in the menus for recompiling it.
>
> Also, the audio file I've loaded into MultiModeFilter stops playing after 30
> seconds. There is no obvious way to lengthen the amount of audio that
> MultiModeFilter will load.
>
> The meta-observation or meta-question that I'm driving at here is this: Is
> the only way to learn Cecilia to post questions to the Csound list, one or
> two questions at a time, and hope someone answers them? Or is there a good,
> thorough document somewhere that explains all this stuff? There's no need
> for me to keep posting questions if I can learn what I need to know by
> studying a document!
>
> --Jim Aikin
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4718718.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

> There is a menu command for reinitiating the module that should redraw
> the GUI. There is also a pop-up window next to the input file dialogue
> for changing the duration.

(a) Yes. (b) No.

The pop-up window has commands for audio offset, loop type, loop in, loop
time, loop X, gain, and transposition. There is no field for total sample
duration, as far as I can see.

> As for the tutorial, have you not seen the documentation that you can
> access from the help menu? That proved sufficient for me personally to
> get started. 

I found that content very non-helpful. There's no table of contents, there's
no back button (you have to scroll to the bottom for the link to return to
the higher-level page, and that takes you to the TOP of the previous page,
not to the position you were at before), and so far NONE of the things you
have explained to me here in the list is mentioned in the Help pages ... or
if any of them is, I wouldn't know where to find them, because there's no
table of contents.

So I guess the answer to my top-level question is, "No, there's no good
documentation, and the developers are not available by email. You're on your
own."

I still think it's a very nice piece of software -- except that it's not
usable for anything but processing audio through the supplied modules unless
you're good at making blind guesses for days on end in order to learn it.
Right now I'm working on the chapter in my upcoming Csound book on front
ends, and I'd LIKE to be able to tell people Cecilia is terrific, and they
should look into it more closely. As matters stand, I will be unable to say
that. I'm going to have a nice solid section in that chapter discussing
blue, and a brief, sketchy, inadequate section discussing Cecilia, because I
don't understand how it operates, and neither will anybody else who
downloads it.

If there's good documentation anywhere, I'll cheerfully add a tutorial to
the book walking people through these points of confusion. But if not, not.
I sure hope somebody can point me to some good documentation.

--JA

--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4719284.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

It's summer and the developer are probably away on vacation. The
software is free and is in beta version and very much in development.

Why are you making a general comment based on an experience that is
yours alone, despite my telling you that I have never encountered your
confusions.

Peiman

On 20 August 2011 23:07, Jim Aikin  wrote:
>> There is a menu command for reinitiating the module that should redraw
>> the GUI. There is also a pop-up window next to the input file dialogue
>> for changing the duration.
>
> (a) Yes. (b) No.
>
> The pop-up window has commands for audio offset, loop type, loop in, loop
> time, loop X, gain, and transposition. There is no field for total sample
> duration, as far as I can see.
>
>> As for the tutorial, have you not seen the documentation that you can
>> access from the help menu? That proved sufficient for me personally to
>> get started.
>
> I found that content very non-helpful. There's no table of contents, there's
> no back button (you have to scroll to the bottom for the link to return to
> the higher-level page, and that takes you to the TOP of the previous page,
> not to the position you were at before), and so far NONE of the things you
> have explained to me here in the list is mentioned in the Help pages ... or
> if any of them is, I wouldn't know where to find them, because there's no
> table of contents.
>
> So I guess the answer to my top-level question is, "No, there's no good
> documentation, and the developers are not available by email. You're on your
> own."
>
> I still think it's a very nice piece of software -- except that it's not
> usable for anything but processing audio through the supplied modules unless
> you're good at making blind guesses for days on end in order to learn it.
> Right now I'm working on the chapter in my upcoming Csound book on front
> ends, and I'd LIKE to be able to tell people Cecilia is terrific, and they
> should look into it more closely. As matters stand, I will be unable to say
> that. I'm going to have a nice solid section in that chapter discussing
> blue, and a brief, sketchy, inadequate section discussing Cecilia, because I
> don't understand how it operates, and neither will anybody else who
> downloads it.
>
> If there's good documentation anywhere, I'll cheerfully add a tutorial to
> the book walking people through these points of confusion. But if not, not.
> I sure hope somebody can point me to some good documentation.
>
> --JA
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4719284.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

> Why are you making a general comment based on an experience that is
> yours alone, despite my telling you that I have never encountered your
> confusions. 

It's a professional hazard. I've been writing reviews of music software for
close to 30 years, so I have probably way too much experience launching new
software, trying to understand it, and trying to find things in the manual
when I don't understand something. For better or worse, I have an underlying
idea of an "average user" (which would of course change radically depending
on whether I'm writing about Csound or GarageBand). Your comments provide a
very useful data point, and they're much appreciated -- but they don't
override my basic view of the situation.

The term "beta" is sometimes used rather freely. This is version 4.2 of the
software, so even when the software is free, I feel one is entitled to hope
for decent documentation.

If it's not provided by the developers, then possibly some third party will
step in and help with the job. In an entirely different area, I did exactly
that a couple of years ago. I wrote a free book-length tutorial for a free,
cross-platform development system whose documentation I felt was less useful
than it might have been. A number of people have told me that they found my
Inform 7 Handbook useful. If there is nothing comparable for Cecilia, that
suggests to me that perhaps the total user base is small. That's a guess,
but it's another data point.

When deciding how to write about Cecilia in the book I'm working on, I take
all of these points into consideration. I'm not always right, of course.
Sometimes I'm wrong. But I'm seldom wrong for trivial or ill-considered
reasons. I hope that explains it.

--JA


--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4719784.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 21 August 2011 06:21, Jim Aikin  wrote:
>> Why are you making a general comment based on an experience that is
>> yours alone, despite my telling you that I have never encountered your
>> confusions.
>
> It's a professional hazard. I've been writing reviews of music software for
> close to 30 years, so I have probably way too much experience launching new
> software, trying to understand it, and trying to find things in the manual
> when I don't understand something. For better or worse, I have an underlying
> idea of an "average user" (which would of course change radically depending
> on whether I'm writing about Csound or GarageBand). Your comments provide a
> very useful data point, and they're much appreciated -- but they don't
> override my basic view of the situation.
>
> The term "beta" is sometimes used rather freely. This is version 4.2 of the
> software, so even when the software is free, I feel one is entitled to hope
> for decent documentation.
>
> If it's not provided by the developers, then possibly some third party will
> step in and help with the job. In an entirely different area, I did exactly
> that a couple of years ago. I wrote a free book-length tutorial for a free,
> cross-platform development system whose documentation I felt was less useful
> than it might have been. A number of people have told me that they found my
> Inform 7 Handbook useful. If there is nothing comparable for Cecilia, that
> suggests to me that perhaps the total user base is small. That's a guess,
> but it's another data point.
>

Compared with, say, Logic the total user base of Csound is probably
pretty small too but that is not a reflection on its documentation.
Those interested in using Cecilia on a deeper level are assumed to
have a good knowledge of Csound in the first place and therefore
computing in general. The lack of a thorough documentation is probably
not as big a deal as it would be for the "average" user. Although of
course it would be nice to have better documentation I never felt that
Cecilia needs better documentation because it is so straightforward.
You can still used Cecilia as a sound processor anyway and it is still
going to give you a lot more than your typical DAW plug-ins.

Best,
Peiman

> When deciding how to write about Cecilia in the book I'm working on, I take
> all of these points into consideration. I'm not always right, of course.
> Sometimes I'm wrong. But I'm seldom wrong for trivial or ill-considered
> reasons. I hope that explains it.
>
> --JA
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4719784.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hi, just to reflect my personal experience:

A bit like Jim, I read that cecilia has great possibilities and started to explore it.  But I got nowhere - things just did not work or I could not understand the logic and following examples in the web did not help either.

It was some time ago and probably the problem was in me but the emotional experience was such that I have never felt like to going back to Cecilia (although perhaps it does make sense).

And for example with QuteCsound the experience was completely different - I just started to love it from the very first launch. So I think it does depend a bit on the developers' attitude to make a user-friendly software. 

greetings,
tarmo

On Sunday 21 August 2011 08:21:06 Jim Aikin wrote:
> > Why are you making a general comment based on an experience that is
> > yours alone, despite my telling you that I have never encountered your
> > confusions. 
> 
> It's a professional hazard. I've been writing reviews of music software for
> close to 30 years, so I have probably way too much experience launching new
> software, trying to understand it, and trying to find things in the manual
> when I don't understand something. For better or worse, I have an underlying
> idea of an "average user" (which would of course change radically depending
> on whether I'm writing about Csound or GarageBand). Your comments provide a
> very useful data point, and they're much appreciated -- but they don't
> override my basic view of the situation.
> 
> The term "beta" is sometimes used rather freely. This is version 4.2 of the
> software, so even when the software is free, I feel one is entitled to hope
> for decent documentation.
> 
> If it's not provided by the developers, then possibly some third party will
> step in and help with the job. In an entirely different area, I did exactly
> that a couple of years ago. I wrote a free book-length tutorial for a free,
> cross-platform development system whose documentation I felt was less useful
> than it might have been. A number of people have told me that they found my
> Inform 7 Handbook useful. If there is nothing comparable for Cecilia, that
> suggests to me that perhaps the total user base is small. That's a guess,
> but it's another data point.
> 
> When deciding how to write about Cecilia in the book I'm working on, I take
> all of these points into consideration. I'm not always right, of course.
> Sometimes I'm wrong. But I'm seldom wrong for trivial or ill-considered
> reasons. I hope that explains it.
> 
> --JA
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4719784.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
> 
> 


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 19/08/2011 21:18, Jim Aikin wrote:
>> If you open one of the ready-made modules in the 'edit' mode you
>> should be able to see the csound code and how variables are connected
>> with the GUI widgets.
>
> I can see that ... but I also notice things like how seven lines of code in
> the INTERFACE section seem to be producing an interface window with more
> than 20 controls. That doesn't quite make sense to me.


Cecilia is adding quite a lot of framework stuff behind the scenes. For 
example, the post-processing effect module panels (upper left of window) 
are sort of "standard" Cecilia modules - when you select an effect, the 
required code is auto-generated. Their controls belong to Cecilia, 
rather than to the custom widgets declared in a script. Those are 
displayed in the remaining panels of the interface. The full Csound code 
generated, including preset plugin effects ~if specified~, can be seen 
via the menu File->"Show computed .csd file".

> I also see, in the SCORE section of BreakBeatCut.cec, a score with only one
> event, which has a p3 of [total_time]. This raises the immediate question
> ... where is that value defined?

This is my conclusion after a few minutes of exploring: - it takes the 
value set in the supplied "Duration" slider; so it is in effect a 
"place-holder" name. It gets replaced by the actual value in the full 
csd file. As a guess, probably the idea is that is is read-only: you 
might refer to it (make other durations relative to it, perhaps), but 
not modify it directly in the script, instead doing so via the interface.


It's not visible on my screen, but it must
> be getting defined somewhere. Clearly, then, Cecilia is doing stuff behind
> the scenes. I would like to understand what it's doing.
>

I do agree that a lot more documentation would be welcome, especially if 
it is intended that Cecilia be attractive to first-time users not 
already hugely conversant with Csound; though that has not really been 
its history. Some aspects clearly reflect this - you can quit the 
program, close the interface panel, etc, with no warning about saving 
your patch, so if you are not vigilant, you will probably lose work. 
This would be a symptom of targetting experienced rather than novice 
users (the former being unlikely to hit Cmd-Q by accident).

The challenge being that in essence two separate styles of documentation 
are needed (if not three): One for the (relatively) novice user, who 
knows nothing of Csound and will likely rely on the supplied preset 
modules offering enough to do interesting things with. In this respect, 
one error IMO in the GUI is that the transport controls (play, record) 
are not permanently visible, but scroll out of view as you scroll down 
the effects panel.

The second style of documentation would be targetted at practised Csound 
users, and would perforce need to document, among other things, much 
more exactly how the full output csd is generated, and how, where 
rel;evant, user-created code interacts with Cecilia-generated code.

A third style of documentation might similarly be aimed at Python users.

In short, the problem Cecilia presents is that one either does something 
fairly minimal by way of documentation (i.e. pretty much what is already 
provided), or one creates something very substantial, in the attempt to 
both cover all aspects and address the non-trivial matter of the Csound 
and python language assuming no prior knowledge.  Writing such 
documentation is really  something of a specialist skill (combination of 
music, CS and education backgrounds), and manifestly cannot be done 
quickly. It would almost certainly need either a level of community 
engagement similar to that which has produced all the Csound 
documentation we know and love, and thus take a similar amount of time 
to create, or it needs funding, so someone can spend six months doing 
nothing else. Sometimes it is better if the developer does not write the 
documentation, as the inclination to document how they designed it, 
rather than approach it strictly from the user's perspective, can be 
very strong!


In the short-term, you are left with a certain amount of deduction to 
employ, and checking all the menu options, html help files, etc!

Richard Dobson




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 2011-08-21 10:24, Richard Dobson wrote:
> This would be a symptom of targetting experienced rather than novice
> users (the former being unlikely to hit Cmd-Q by accident).
>

I find that the probability of hitting the wrong key goes up with age 
and my level of frustration with the software.

Martin


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

> The full Csound code
> generated, including preset plugin effects ~if specified~, can be seen
> via the menu File->"Show computed .csd file". 

Aha! That's very helpful. Thanks.

> The second style of documentation would be targetted at practised Csound
> users, and would perforce need to document, among other things, much
> more exactly how the full output csd is generated, and how, where
> relevant, user-created code interacts with Cecilia-generated code.

There are other resources for learning Csound, so I would put this doc at
the top of the list, not second.

I agree that having the developer write the docs is not always a good idea!
AthenaCL, which I've barely glanced at, has extensive documentation, but the
first two paragraphs made my head spin. I suspect it's an amazingly powerful
system, but I'm not sure I have enough motivation to dig into it.

Nor, perhaps, should I. AthenaCL is clearly for experts only. Whereas,
conversely, Cecilia presents a user interface that APPEARS to appeal to the
novice. The appearance turns out to be somewhat deceptive, and that is what
has been throwing me off.

--JA

--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4720801.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

off list so as not to upset too many but I tried Cecilia once.  Could not
work out how to make it do anything!  I upset Jean Piche' by saying so on
this list, (or its predicessor) so I just keep quiet and continue with the
command line interface.

==John ff



Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 21/08/2011 17:30, Jim Aikin wrote:
...Whereas,
> conversely, Cecilia presents a user interface that APPEARS to appeal to the
> novice. The appearance turns out to be somewhat deceptive, and that is what
> has been throwing me off.
>

This is interesting - I would not have said that. It ostensibly appeals 
to people who like/prefer GUIs, with rotary controls, sliders, tooltips, 
a "File" menu, and generally mouse-centric operations. That would apply 
equally to Photoshop, Pro Tools and Illustrator (to say nothing of 
Max/MSP), but I would not see those as, de facto, appealing to novices 
either. To my way of thinking, something that would appeal to novices 
would need to look and behave very similarly to something that they are 
already [presumed to be] familiar with (part of the principle of "least 
surprise"). But we do need to define "novice" to start with, which may 
be a debate in itself. One can be an expert on one field and still be a 
novice in another!

Perhaps the number of widgets per square inch is a measure. The vast 
majority of complex/powerful softsynth plugins supplied with Logic Pro 
are so filled with widgets, and usually in strange pseudo-techno styling 
  (with typically very small hard-to-read text) that I find them utterly 
intimidating and impenetrable. And even several years on, I find the 
design of many of them strange, to say the least. I am (sort of) used to 
GUIs which are anything but "simple". Intensive reading of the manual is 
inescapable. So I am interested to know what in particular makes Cecelia 
"appear" to appeal to novices, because, beyond the simple presence of 
GUI widgets (and a File menu), I don't really see it. This could be an 
interesting HCI issue!

Richard Dobson




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I think there may be a discrepancy in the definition of "novice" here
as Richard points out. There seems to be an inherent implication here
that GUI only familiarity somehow means lack of deeper understanding:
but of what? Of how computers work? of sound? of music? of mixing,
processing, editing? of the software itself? The list goes on.

As far as the Csound novice is concerned then Cecilia is very
approachable as it does not presuppose any previous knowledge of
coding.

Now whether as a user you find a piece of software off putting in
terms of its GUI or not is a matter of preference. Many people love
Logic and many developers seem to use Logic as their model (e.g.
reaper or StudioOne), I on the other hand find Logic over complicated
and cluttered and absolutely impenetrable. Ardour is so simple and
straightforward to me, but then how many times have I heard "I hate
the look of Ardour" or "I can't work it out"? So it seems that our
preference for software design is partly dictated by familiarity,
party by taste. And more importantly by our individual musical
approach itself - e.g. I have a phobia of piano roles and keyboards
but am in love with automation editors! Personally I got into Csound
because of Cecilia (and later blue). I wanted to learn Csound because
I liked the possibilities that Cecilia offered.

Best,
Peiman

On 21 August 2011 18:45, Richard Dobson  wrote:
> On 21/08/2011 17:30, Jim Aikin wrote:
> ...Whereas,
>>
>> conversely, Cecilia presents a user interface that APPEARS to appeal to
>> the
>> novice. The appearance turns out to be somewhat deceptive, and that is
>> what
>> has been throwing me off.
>>
>
> This is interesting - I would not have said that. It ostensibly appeals to
> people who like/prefer GUIs, with rotary controls, sliders, tooltips, a
> "File" menu, and generally mouse-centric operations. That would apply
> equally to Photoshop, Pro Tools and Illustrator (to say nothing of Max/MSP),
> but I would not see those as, de facto, appealing to novices either. To my
> way of thinking, something that would appeal to novices would need to look
> and behave very similarly to something that they are already [presumed to
> be] familiar with (part of the principle of "least surprise"). But we do
> need to define "novice" to start with, which may be a debate in itself. One
> can be an expert on one field and still be a novice in another!
>
> Perhaps the number of widgets per square inch is a measure. The vast
> majority of complex/powerful softsynth plugins supplied with Logic Pro are
> so filled with widgets, and usually in strange pseudo-techno styling  (with
> typically very small hard-to-read text) that I find them utterly
> intimidating and impenetrable. And even several years on, I find the design
> of many of them strange, to say the least. I am (sort of) used to GUIs which
> are anything but "simple". Intensive reading of the manual is inescapable.
> So I am interested to know what in particular makes Cecelia "appear" to
> appeal to novices, because, beyond the simple presence of GUI widgets (and a
> File menu), I don't really see it. This could be an interesting HCI issue!
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Also I must point out that Cecilia is in many institutions and among
many circles of composers the only reason why some people have even
heard of Csound.

P

On 21 August 2011 19:06, peiman khosravi  wrote:
> I think there may be a discrepancy in the definition of "novice" here
> as Richard points out. There seems to be an inherent implication here
> that GUI only familiarity somehow means lack of deeper understanding:
> but of what? Of how computers work? of sound? of music? of mixing,
> processing, editing? of the software itself? The list goes on.
>
> As far as the Csound novice is concerned then Cecilia is very
> approachable as it does not presuppose any previous knowledge of
> coding.
>
> Now whether as a user you find a piece of software off putting in
> terms of its GUI or not is a matter of preference. Many people love
> Logic and many developers seem to use Logic as their model (e.g.
> reaper or StudioOne), I on the other hand find Logic over complicated
> and cluttered and absolutely impenetrable. Ardour is so simple and
> straightforward to me, but then how many times have I heard "I hate
> the look of Ardour" or "I can't work it out"? So it seems that our
> preference for software design is partly dictated by familiarity,
> party by taste. And more importantly by our individual musical
> approach itself - e.g. I have a phobia of piano roles and keyboards
> but am in love with automation editors! Personally I got into Csound
> because of Cecilia (and later blue). I wanted to learn Csound because
> I liked the possibilities that Cecilia offered.
>
> Best,
> Peiman
>
> On 21 August 2011 18:45, Richard Dobson  wrote:
>> On 21/08/2011 17:30, Jim Aikin wrote:
>> ...Whereas,
>>>
>>> conversely, Cecilia presents a user interface that APPEARS to appeal to
>>> the
>>> novice. The appearance turns out to be somewhat deceptive, and that is
>>> what
>>> has been throwing me off.
>>>
>>
>> This is interesting - I would not have said that. It ostensibly appeals to
>> people who like/prefer GUIs, with rotary controls, sliders, tooltips, a
>> "File" menu, and generally mouse-centric operations. That would apply
>> equally to Photoshop, Pro Tools and Illustrator (to say nothing of Max/MSP),
>> but I would not see those as, de facto, appealing to novices either. To my
>> way of thinking, something that would appeal to novices would need to look
>> and behave very similarly to something that they are already [presumed to
>> be] familiar with (part of the principle of "least surprise"). But we do
>> need to define "novice" to start with, which may be a debate in itself. One
>> can be an expert on one field and still be a novice in another!
>>
>> Perhaps the number of widgets per square inch is a measure. The vast
>> majority of complex/powerful softsynth plugins supplied with Logic Pro are
>> so filled with widgets, and usually in strange pseudo-techno styling  (with
>> typically very small hard-to-read text) that I find them utterly
>> intimidating and impenetrable. And even several years on, I find the design
>> of many of them strange, to say the least. I am (sort of) used to GUIs which
>> are anything but "simple". Intensive reading of the manual is inescapable.
>> So I am interested to know what in particular makes Cecelia "appear" to
>> appeal to novices, because, beyond the simple presence of GUI widgets (and a
>> File menu), I don't really see it. This could be an interesting HCI issue!
>>
>> Richard Dobson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Sounds like a great idea. I would offer to help but I'm too busy until
January to commit to anything.

Peiman

On 21 August 2011 20:02, Iain McCurdy  wrote:
> I think perhaps a Cecilia chapter in the FLOSS manual might be helpful...
> I.
>
>> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:18:28 +0100
>> From: peimankhosravi@gmail.com
>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Re: Cecilia
>>
>> Also I must point out that Cecilia is in many institutions and among
>> many circles of composers the only reason why some people have even
>> heard of Csound.
>>
>> P
>>
>> On 21 August 2011 19:06, peiman khosravi  wrote:
>> > I think there may be a discrepancy in the definition of "novice" here
>> > as Richard points out. There seems to be an inherent implication here
>> > that GUI only familiarity somehow means lack of deeper understanding:
>> > but of what? Of how computers work? of sound? of music? of mixing,
>> > processing, editing? of the software itself? The list goes on.
>> >
>> > As far as the Csound novice is concerned then Cecilia is very
>> > approachable as it does not presuppose any previous knowledge of
>> > coding.
>> >
>> > Now whether as a user you find a piece of software off putting in
>> > terms of its GUI or not is a matter of preference. Many people love
>> > Logic and many developers seem to use Logic as their model (e.g.
>> > reaper or StudioOne), I on the other hand find Logic over complicated
>> > and cluttered and absolutely impenetrable. Ardour is so simple and
>> > straightforward to me, but then how many times have I heard "I hate
>> > the look of Ardour" or "I can't work it out"? So it seems that our
>> > preference for software design is partly dictated by familiarity,
>> > party by taste. And more importantly by our individual musical
>> > approach itself - e.g. I have a phobia of piano roles and keyboards
>> > but am in love with automation editors! Personally I got into Csound
>> > because of Cecilia (and later blue). I wanted to learn Csound because
>> > I liked the possibilities that Cecilia offered.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Peiman
>> >
>> > On 21 August 2011 18:45, Richard Dobson 
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 21/08/2011 17:30, Jim Aikin wrote:
>> >> ...Whereas,
>> >>>
>> >>> conversely, Cecilia presents a user interface that APPEARS to appeal
>> >>> to
>> >>> the
>> >>> novice. The appearance turns out to be somewhat deceptive, and that is
>> >>> what
>> >>> has been throwing me off.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> This is interesting - I would not have said that. It ostensibly appeals
>> >> to
>> >> people who like/prefer GUIs, with rotary controls, sliders, tooltips, a
>> >> "File" menu, and generally mouse-centric operations. That would apply
>> >> equally to Photoshop, Pro Tools and Illustrator (to say nothing of
>> >> Max/MSP),
>> >> but I would not see those as, de facto, appealing to novices either. To
>> >> my
>> >> way of thinking, something that would appeal to novices would need to
>> >> look
>> >> and behave very similarly to something that they are already [presumed
>> >> to
>> >> be] familiar with (part of the principle of "least surprise"). But we
>> >> do
>> >> need to define "novice" to start with, which may be a debate in itself.
>> >> One
>> >> can be an expert on one field and still be a novice in another!
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps the number of widgets per square inch is a measure. The vast
>> >> majority of complex/powerful softsynth plugins supplied with Logic Pro
>> >> are
>> >> so filled with widgets, and usually in strange pseudo-techno styling
>> >>  (with
>> >> typically very small hard-to-read text) that I find them utterly
>> >> intimidating and impenetrable. And even several years on, I find the
>> >> design
>> >> of many of them strange, to say the least. I am (sort of) used to GUIs
>> >> which
>> >> are anything but "simple". Intensive reading of the manual is
>> >> inescapable.
>> >> So I am interested to know what in particular makes Cecelia "appear" to
>> >> appeal to novices, because, beyond the simple presence of GUI widgets
>> >> (and a
>> >> File menu), I don't really see it. This could be an interesting HCI
>> >> issue!
>> >>
>> >> Richard Dobson
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>> >>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> >> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> >> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>> >> "unsubscribe
>> >> csound"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I am one of those lucky individuals for whom Cecilia was the gateway to
full-on Csound. It seemed pretty straightforward to me, and what sounds! I
agree it was/is tricky to control and gaining control was what led me into
the code and ultimately Csound. If I remember rightly the Csound Book has
the user manual (such as it is) for the old version 2.5 which has pretty
detailed tute on designing modules. The code is different now but the
principles are still close.  It still appears to be online here
http://emu.music.ufl.edu/cecilia/tut1.html
Good place to start.
It's a shame Jim, that you have had a bad experience with this as it is an
amazing peice of software. BTW there is a slider in the output section of
every cecilia module that sets the duration? Pretty clearly. I hope you
persevere, I learned a huge amount about Csound from picking apart cecilia
code and still like to play around with it.

B_man

--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4722753.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I didn't have any luck with it either a couple of years ago when I explored
it. I was conversant with Csound but Cecilia baffled me.

Perhaps I should have taken a little more time. Very respected computer
music experts on this board are having completely different experiences in
terms of its usability....

r

--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4724998.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I haven't tried Cecilia, but since the conversation is now considering  
other alternatives, may I mention Super Collider? I gave it a  
substantial try this summer and decided that the cost of entry was too  
high for me. The tutorials are packed with unexplained syntax in the  
examples. The language was intentionally designed with multiple  
syntaxes for the same constructs. Maybe this is handy when you know  
the language but I gave up.

I strongly identify with the experience of un-ease you're mentioning,  
David.

-Lou Cohen

On Aug 22, 2011, at 11:40 PM, DavidW wrote:

> I tried it once, I think, and couldn't work out why I would prefer  
> it a coded approach.
> Which is to say nothing about it -per se- more about the tools I  
> like to think _with_.
>
> FWIW, I have the same problem with PD (and its commercial  
> predecessor):
> After an initial ease, with simple examples, an overwhelming dis- 
> ease sets in as I find I can't think _in_ it beyond a certain level  
> of complexity.
>
> I put it down to personal preference: I can 'hear' (and dream) code,  
> but not patch cords.
> David
>
> On 23/08/2011, at 10:32 AM, rasputin wrote:
>
>> I didn't have any luck with it either a couple of years ago when I  
>> explored
>> it. I was conversant with Csound but Cecilia baffled me.
>>
>> Perhaps I should have taken a little more time. Very respected  
>> computer
>> music experts on this board are having completely different  
>> experiences in
>> terms of its usability....
>>
>> r
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Cecilia-tp4716619p4724998.html
>> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/? 
>> group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>
>
> _____________________________________________
> Dr David Worrall
> Adjunct Research Fellow, Australian National University
> david.worrall@anu.edu.au
> Board Member, International Community for Auditory Display
> Regional Editor, Organised Sound (CUP)
> IT Projects, Music Council of Australia
> worrall.avatar.com.au	sonification.com.au
>
>



Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 23/08/2011 17:00, DavidW wrote:
>
..
> * Is it likely to have a 'half-life' long enough for me to be able to
> spend more time composing adequately complex sonic structures than
> adapting to yet another new approach as it comes over the horizon? This
> is not to suggest that attention to these new inventions is not
> important - they are often full of ideas - but I need them to inform my
> practice, not dictate it. Given the history of the field, I am
> suspicious of the risk posed by fully-commercial products.
>

Sadly there will always be risks posed by software, and they may even be 
similar. See Olivier's post in this thread, where he indicates the next 
version of Cecilia will use Python throughout, not Csound. Those who 
think of Cecelia as a "front end for Csound" will need to take note that 
after 4.2 it won't be. It makes the issue of documentation somewhat 
moot. Jim Aiken may want to reconsider whether his book should have a 
chapter on Cecilia at all.

We have been spoiled in many ways by the longevity of Csound, to imagine 
that most other FOSS software is like that. FOSS projects are like 
species in nature - many become extinct every day. Projects (or their 
developers) can either disappear, or transmogrify so much that they 
effectively become a new product.  Perhaps some other Python-oriented 
developer (or teamm of developers) can take on Cecilia 4.2 and maintain 
its Csound focus (which will of course mean a major fork, mutually 
incompatible versions of what may appear to be the same program, etc). 
In principle, any of the Csound front-ends which are the work of a 
single developer presents the same risk.

Csound may even be unique in the FOSS world as an actively developed 
program where the original author is no longer involved, for no other 
reason than that he went on to other things (and he was more than happy 
with those who initially took over the reins, i.e. John Fitch). And the 
sometimes hotly debated principle of maintaining backwards compatibility 
so that the oldest Csound pieces will still compile and run, is clearly 
a major contributing factor in that longevity. Adoption by academia is 
another important factor - PD, while still I think dominated by the 
input of Miller Puckette, has an academic institution behind it, as well 
as a cohort of contributing developers that should ensure it continues 
to develop even if Miller gets bored or for whatever other reason goes 
off to do something else.  I wonder how much input James McCartney has 
into SC these days, given he is full-time at Apple; but I suspect its 
long term future will likewise depend on an ongoing active developer 
community with strong academic support.

Richard Dobson





Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

2011/8/23 Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk>

On 23/08/2011 17:00, DavidW wrote:

..

* Is it likely to have a 'half-life' long enough for me to be able to

spend more time composing adequately complex sonic structures than
adapting to yet another new approach as it comes over the horizon? This
is not to suggest that attention to these new inventions is not
important - they are often full of ideas - but I need them to inform my
practice, not dictate it. Given the history of the field, I am
suspicious of the risk posed by fully-commercial products.

Sadly there will always be risks posed by software, and they may even be similar. See Olivier's post in this thread, where he indicates the next version of Cecilia will use Python throughout, not Csound. Those who think of Cecelia as a "front end for Csound" will need to take note that after 4.2 it won't be. It makes the issue of documentation somewhat moot. Jim Aiken may want to reconsider whether his book should have a chapter on Cecilia at all.

Yes, that's why I wanted things to be clear before someone waste his time...

Olivier
 

We have been spoiled in many ways by the longevity of Csound, to imagine that most other FOSS software is like that. FOSS projects are like species in nature - many become extinct every day. Projects (or their developers) can either disappear, or transmogrify so much that they effectively become a new product.  Perhaps some other Python-oriented developer (or teamm of developers) can take on Cecilia 4.2 and maintain its Csound focus (which will of course mean a major fork, mutually incompatible versions of what may appear to be the same program, etc). In principle, any of the Csound front-ends which are the work of a single developer presents the same risk.

Csound may even be unique in the FOSS world as an actively developed program where the original author is no longer involved, for no other reason than that he went on to other things (and he was more than happy with those who initially took over the reins, i.e. John Fitch). And the sometimes hotly debated principle of maintaining backwards compatibility so that the oldest Csound pieces will still compile and run, is clearly a major contributing factor in that longevity. Adoption by academia is another important factor - PD, while still I think dominated by the input of Miller Puckette, has an academic institution behind it, as well as a cohort of contributing developers that should ensure it continues to develop even if Miller gets bored or for whatever other reason goes off to do something else.  I wonder how much input James McCartney has into SC these days, given he is full-time at Apple; but I suspect its long term future will likewise depend on an ongoing active developer community with strong academic support.

Richard Dobson

Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
          https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Now you mention, Cmask is an interesting case at hand. It is no longer
developed but still useable, particularly the python port that Steven
has ported to jython in Blue. I always though that it would be great
to continue the development of Cmask as it has so much potential to
offer. Once things get settled in my life I'm gonna take a look at the
python implementation and hopefully start something going.

Best,

Peiman

On 23 August 2011 18:38, Kelly Hirai  wrote:
> as i recall, cecilia was not married to csound so much as being the child of
> csound and cmask. i remember i had some friends generating environmental
> sounds for theater using stochastic event generators in another commercial
> program, and i having related cecilia to it. this was back in 2006.
>
> k.
>
> On 08/23/11 13:22, Olivier Bélanger wrote:
>
> 2011/8/23 Richard Dobson 
>>
>> On 23/08/2011 17:00, DavidW wrote:
>>>
>> ..
>>>
>>> * Is it likely to have a 'half-life' long enough for me to be able to
>>> spend more time composing adequately complex sonic structures than
>>> adapting to yet another new approach as it comes over the horizon? This
>>> is not to suggest that attention to these new inventions is not
>>> important - they are often full of ideas - but I need them to inform my
>>> practice, not dictate it. Given the history of the field, I am
>>> suspicious of the risk posed by fully-commercial products.
>>>
>>
>> Sadly there will always be risks posed by software, and they may even be
>> similar. See Olivier's post in this thread, where he indicates the next
>> version of Cecilia will use Python throughout, not Csound. Those who think
>> of Cecelia as a "front end for Csound" will need to take note that after 4.2
>> it won't be. It makes the issue of documentation somewhat moot. Jim Aiken
>> may want to reconsider whether his book should have a chapter on Cecilia at
>> all.
>
> Yes, that's why I wanted things to be clear before someone waste his time...
>
> Olivier
>
>>
>> We have been spoiled in many ways by the longevity of Csound, to imagine
>> that most other FOSS software is like that. FOSS projects are like species
>> in nature - many become extinct every day. Projects (or their developers)
>> can either disappear, or transmogrify so much that they effectively become a
>> new product.  Perhaps some other Python-oriented developer (or teamm of
>> developers) can take on Cecilia 4.2 and maintain its Csound focus (which
>> will of course mean a major fork, mutually incompatible versions of what may
>> appear to be the same program, etc). In principle, any of the Csound
>> front-ends which are the work of a single developer presents the same risk.
>>
>> Csound may even be unique in the FOSS world as an actively developed
>> program where the original author is no longer involved, for no other reason
>> than that he went on to other things (and he was more than happy with those
>> who initially took over the reins, i.e. John Fitch). And the sometimes hotly
>> debated principle of maintaining backwards compatibility so that the oldest
>> Csound pieces will still compile and run, is clearly a major contributing
>> factor in that longevity. Adoption by academia is another important factor -
>> PD, while still I think dominated by the input of Miller Puckette, has an
>> academic institution behind it, as well as a cohort of contributing
>> developers that should ensure it continues to develop even if Miller gets
>> bored or for whatever other reason goes off to do something else.  I wonder
>> how much input James McCartney has into SC these days, given he is full-time
>> at Apple; but I suspect its long term future will likewise depend on an
>> ongoing active developer community with strong academic support.
>>
>> Richard Dobson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hello,

I decided to explore Cecelia (4.2, Mac) for a bit of sound design, since 
the rapidity of drawing, comparing and auditioning control data 
("Automation") seems very well suited to the task. However I have hit a 
snag which is surprising - when I "Save As..." to a .cec file (there is 
no other choice), none of the automation data is preserved, so that I 
have lost all that work. I have checked preferences for some setting to 
set, and find none; and the same situation applied to saving a preset 
too. Is this is a bug on the todo list somewhere, a lack in Cecelia 
itself (which therefore, among other things, makes it impossible to 
resume a project in a later session),  or is there some obscure command 
or setting I have not found?


Richard Dobson



Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I think you need to save a snapshot or something like that (can't
remember off the top of my head). But there is a separate option for
saving all your setting. The .cec file only saves the actual
instrument design and GUI.

Best,

Peiman

On 10 September 2011 12:44, Richard Dobson
 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I decided to explore Cecelia (4.2, Mac) for a bit of sound design, since the
> rapidity of drawing, comparing and auditioning control data ("Automation")
> seems very well suited to the task. However I have hit a snag which is
> surprising - when I "Save As..." to a .cec file (there is no other choice),
> none of the automation data is preserved, so that I have lost all that work.
> I have checked preferences for some setting to set, and find none; and the
> same situation applied to saving a preset too. Is this is a bug on the todo
> list somewhere, a lack in Cecelia itself (which therefore, among other
> things, makes it impossible to resume a project in a later session),  or is
> there some obscure command or setting I have not found?
>
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 10/09/2011 14:42, peiman khosravi wrote:
> I think you need to save a snapshot or something like that (can't
> remember off the top of my head).

I can't see anything called that fits that description. There is a 
function to save an individual graph (but not in a pure Csound form that 
can be directly plugged into a csd file), but that does not really solve 
the basic problem.


But there is a separate option for
> saving all your setting.

Can't find that either.

The .cec file only saves the actual
> instrument design and GUI.
>

Except it does not preserve the drawn automation tracks, which are 
manifestly part of the GUI.

Perhaps therein lies the clue though - this is aimed specifically at 
instrument design, whereas I am trying to create ~sounds~ with a 
morphology; which I can easily do by creating arbitrary automation 
curves or breakpoints, and write the resulting sound to disk. They are 
at the heart of the target sound, and are every bit as important as the 
Csound instrument code. "Save As.." should in any case as a matter of 
principle save ~everything~. So much work has been put into the 
automation drawing and performance, it is beyond my understanding why it 
is not preserved. Nor should it need any "special" command; as I say, by 
default "Save As..." should preserve everything the user has done.  If 
there isn't a means to do this I will simply have to abandon using 
Cecelia and go back to good old text editing. Which is a pity as some of 
the supplied "modules" are very useful for what I want to do; and the 
rapid tweaking of envelopes etc offers the ~promise~ of a very fast and 
convenient way of working.

Richard Dobson




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 10 September 2011 16:41, Richard Dobson
 wrote:
> On 10/09/2011 14:42, peiman khosravi wrote:
>>
>> I think you need to save a snapshot or something like that (can't
>> remember off the top of my head).
>
> I can't see anything called that fits that description. There is a function
> to save an individual graph (but not in a pure Csound form that can be
> directly plugged into a csd file), but that does not really solve the basic
> problem.
>

Ahhh I see. Yes as far as I know you cannot save the graph in pure
csound form in Cecilia.


>
> But there is a separate option for
>>
>> saving all your setting.
>
> Can't find that either.
>
> The .cec file only saves the actual
>>
>> instrument design and GUI.
>>
>
> Except it does not preserve the drawn automation tracks, which are
> manifestly part of the GUI.
>
> Perhaps therein lies the clue though - this is aimed specifically at
> instrument design, whereas I am trying to create ~sounds~ with a morphology;
> which I can easily do by creating arbitrary automation curves or
> breakpoints, and write the resulting sound to disk. They are at the heart of
> the target sound, and are every bit as important as the Csound instrument
> code. "Save As.." should in any case as a matter of principle save
> ~everything~. So much work has been put into the automation drawing and
> performance, it is beyond my understanding why it is not preserved. Nor
> should it need any "special" command; as I say, by default "Save As..."
> should preserve everything the user has done.  If there isn't a means to do
> this I will simply have to abandon using Cecelia and go back to good old
> text editing. Which is a pity as some of the supplied "modules" are very
> useful for what I want to do; and the rapid tweaking of envelopes etc offers
> the ~promise~ of a very fast and convenient way of working.
>

But if you can save the graph then you can reproduce the sound right?
Why not save the sound to disk?

P

> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 10/09/2011 16:52, Olivier Bélanger wrote:
> All presets you saved in the "Presets" section are included in the .cec
> file. When you re-open your file, you can recall any preset (graphs and
> automations are recorded in a preset). The idea is that the .cec file
> acts like a project where the presets are the different possible states
> within that projet.
>


Ah, so "presets" are not a separate file, but an insertion into the 
current cec file. The floppy disk icon is a bit misdirecting; I was 
trying to find a file it corresponded to; and surprised that when  I 
selected a module from the menu list, all it ever showed was "init". May 
I suggest simply a plus sign?  So, does this mean that the modules 
listed under the Modules menu are only ever the "default" ones, and I 
have no independent access to any other quasi-external data?

Richard Dobson


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"