No is the quick answer but there is nothing stopping you from
rebuilding the patches in Csound if you understand the synthesis
techniques used to make them in the first place.

Rory.


On 26 April 2010 08:40, Stefan Thomas  wrote:
> Dear community,
> is there a possibility to convert patches which have been created with
> Absynth to 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"

Most of the techniques used in Absynth seem common enough, i.e.,
granular, additive, subtractive etc. There are plenty of experts on
those subjects lurking around this list so if you've any questions
feel free to post.

On 26 April 2010 12:59, Stefan Thomas  wrote:
> Dear Rory,
> thanks for Your reply!
> I will try!
> 2010/4/26 Rory Walsh 
>>
>> No is the quick answer but there is nothing stopping you from
>> rebuilding the patches in Csound if you understand the synthesis
>> techniques used to make them in the first place.
>>
>> Rory.
>>
>>
>> On 26 April 2010 08:40, Stefan Thomas 
>> wrote:
>> > Dear community,
>> > is there a possibility to convert patches which have been created with
>> > Absynth to 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"

On 27/04/2010 00:20, Greg Schroeder wrote:
> Dumb question . . .
> Do people really pay that much money for much more limited software
> because it looks pretty?
> (csound was my 3rd piece of audio software behind Audacity and Hydrogen)
> Greg

Yes. It is a truth universally acknowledged (at least by those who look 
at things) that if it looks cool, it sounds better. ESPECIALLY  if the 
gui is mostly small dark text on a dark background, with deep 3D shadows.

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 do not have experience with Absynth... but I DO have fairly
extensive experience with Reaktor (also by Native Instruments) and
with the somewhat fancy software synthesizers that come with Cubase.

Glitz is not, in my opinion, the primary attraction. I think that with
Reaktor and the Cubase synths you can get a usable sound going much
faster than with Csound. Reaktor comes with a huge library of pretty
good patches that "just work" in the context of a sequencer or laptop
type music.

On the other hand, when I was keeping up with the Reaktor versions, I
was also working with Csound and I ended up using Csound for almost
all finished pieces... because I ended up preferring Csound's actual
sounds. I did use Reaktor for one piece ("Dark Tower" on _Garden of
Algorithms_) because I liked an FM distortion guitar type sound it
made.

On the other other hand, I am not a typical user, and I would use
software synthesis to render either something composed
algorithmically, or something composed in notation software or with
really fiddly overdubbing.

So I think that it depends on the use case. I think a composer who is
producing a rock band or scoring a film by working fast in a studio
and playing a lot of parts in might find Csound et al. to be much too
slow to deliver the goods. I think if you are a perfectionist and not
working to some stylistic template, then Csound would be very hard to
beat.

Regards,
Mike

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Richard Dobson
 wrote:
> On 27/04/2010 00:20, Greg Schroeder wrote:
>>
>> Dumb question . . .
>> Do people really pay that much money for much more limited software
>> because it looks pretty?
>> (csound was my 3rd piece of audio software behind Audacity and Hydrogen)
>> Greg
>
> Yes. It is a truth universally acknowledged (at least by those who look at
> things) that if it looks cool, it sounds better. ESPECIALLY  if the gui is
> mostly small dark text on a dark background, with deep 3D shadows.
>
> 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"
>
>



-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot 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"

Again, I can't talk about Absynth, but some of Reaktor's canned
patches are quite deep and would be hard to replicate in Csound. There
is a user community that shares patches, too. So, it's not just simple
stuff that comes out of the box already working.

What is limiting in Reaktor is the lack of anything like the streaming
phase vocoder opcodes, though this may have changed in the years since
I used the thing. Being focussed on MIDI is a big limitation only
partly assuaged by OSC and the depth of some of the patches. The
Csound score language is really one of its strong points since it
supports unlimited polyphony, intonation, dynamics, and tied notes.

Regards,
Mike

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Greg Schroeder  wrote:
> Usable sounds are "in the box" if you get the book, and it never will be
> *really* outdated.
> Native Instruments at least occasionally blocks backward compatibility, yes?
> I'm not trying to pick I fight, I'm just pretty confused.
> Adapting fltk examples I've seen elsewhere to the examples in the csound
> book looks to give me more options than I could ever exhaust, and a pretty
> quick route to usable sounds as well.
> If you wanted a 2 oscillator VA synth with a couple ADSRs, an LFO and filter
> options, it's a copy and paste operation and a couple characters changed in
> an existing .CSD file, even presuming you need midi.
> Does Absynth even respond to OSC yet?
> What am I missing here?
> The value in limiting yourself?
> Greg
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Michael Gogins 
> wrote:
>>
>> I do not have experience with Absynth... but I DO have fairly
>> extensive experience with Reaktor (also by Native Instruments) and
>> with the somewhat fancy software synthesizers that come with Cubase.
>>
>> Glitz is not, in my opinion, the primary attraction. I think that with
>> Reaktor and the Cubase synths you can get a usable sound going much
>> faster than with Csound. Reaktor comes with a huge library of pretty
>> good patches that "just work" in the context of a sequencer or laptop
>> type music.
>>
>> On the other hand, when I was keeping up with the Reaktor versions, I
>> was also working with Csound and I ended up using Csound for almost
>> all finished pieces... because I ended up preferring Csound's actual
>> sounds. I did use Reaktor for one piece ("Dark Tower" on _Garden of
>> Algorithms_) because I liked an FM distortion guitar type sound it
>> made.
>>
>> On the other other hand, I am not a typical user, and I would use
>> software synthesis to render either something composed
>> algorithmically, or something composed in notation software or with
>> really fiddly overdubbing.
>>
>> So I think that it depends on the use case. I think a composer who is
>> producing a rock band or scoring a film by working fast in a studio
>> and playing a lot of parts in might find Csound et al. to be much too
>> slow to deliver the goods. I think if you are a perfectionist and not
>> working to some stylistic template, then Csound would be very hard to
>> beat.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Richard Dobson
>>  wrote:
>> > On 27/04/2010 00:20, Greg Schroeder wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dumb question . . .
>> >> Do people really pay that much money for much more limited software
>> >> because it looks pretty?
>> >> (csound was my 3rd piece of audio software behind Audacity and
>> >> Hydrogen)
>> >> Greg
>> >
>> > Yes. It is a truth universally acknowledged (at least by those who look
>> > at
>> > things) that if it looks cool, it sounds better. ESPECIALLY  if the gui
>> > is
>> > mostly small dark text on a dark background, with deep 3D shadows.
>> >
>> > 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"
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Gogins
>> Irreducible Productions
>> http://www.michael-gogins.com
>> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot 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"
>>
>
>



-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot 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"

Just downloaded and checked through the current Reaktor manuals. There
is indeed nothing like the PVS opcodes or indeed any phase vocoder.
The closest thing is some good stuff for granular synthesis.

Csound does indeed have a much deeper library of opcodes. What Reaktor
excels at is the tight integration of opcodes and GUI elements, and
the Reaktor opcodes are well thought out to work together.

Regards,
Mike

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Michael Gogins
 wrote:
> Again, I can't talk about Absynth, but some of Reaktor's canned
> patches are quite deep and would be hard to replicate in Csound. There
> is a user community that shares patches, too. So, it's not just simple
> stuff that comes out of the box already working.
>
> What is limiting in Reaktor is the lack of anything like the streaming
> phase vocoder opcodes, though this may have changed in the years since
> I used the thing. Being focussed on MIDI is a big limitation only
> partly assuaged by OSC and the depth of some of the patches. The
> Csound score language is really one of its strong points since it
> supports unlimited polyphony, intonation, dynamics, and tied notes.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Greg Schroeder  wrote:
>> Usable sounds are "in the box" if you get the book, and it never will be
>> *really* outdated.
>> Native Instruments at least occasionally blocks backward compatibility, yes?
>> I'm not trying to pick I fight, I'm just pretty confused.
>> Adapting fltk examples I've seen elsewhere to the examples in the csound
>> book looks to give me more options than I could ever exhaust, and a pretty
>> quick route to usable sounds as well.
>> If you wanted a 2 oscillator VA synth with a couple ADSRs, an LFO and filter
>> options, it's a copy and paste operation and a couple characters changed in
>> an existing .CSD file, even presuming you need midi.
>> Does Absynth even respond to OSC yet?
>> What am I missing here?
>> The value in limiting yourself?
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Michael Gogins 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I do not have experience with Absynth... but I DO have fairly
>>> extensive experience with Reaktor (also by Native Instruments) and
>>> with the somewhat fancy software synthesizers that come with Cubase.
>>>
>>> Glitz is not, in my opinion, the primary attraction. I think that with
>>> Reaktor and the Cubase synths you can get a usable sound going much
>>> faster than with Csound. Reaktor comes with a huge library of pretty
>>> good patches that "just work" in the context of a sequencer or laptop
>>> type music.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, when I was keeping up with the Reaktor versions, I
>>> was also working with Csound and I ended up using Csound for almost
>>> all finished pieces... because I ended up preferring Csound's actual
>>> sounds. I did use Reaktor for one piece ("Dark Tower" on _Garden of
>>> Algorithms_) because I liked an FM distortion guitar type sound it
>>> made.
>>>
>>> On the other other hand, I am not a typical user, and I would use
>>> software synthesis to render either something composed
>>> algorithmically, or something composed in notation software or with
>>> really fiddly overdubbing.
>>>
>>> So I think that it depends on the use case. I think a composer who is
>>> producing a rock band or scoring a film by working fast in a studio
>>> and playing a lot of parts in might find Csound et al. to be much too
>>> slow to deliver the goods. I think if you are a perfectionist and not
>>> working to some stylistic template, then Csound would be very hard to
>>> beat.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Richard Dobson
>>>  wrote:
>>> > On 27/04/2010 00:20, Greg Schroeder wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Dumb question . . .
>>> >> Do people really pay that much money for much more limited software
>>> >> because it looks pretty?
>>> >> (csound was my 3rd piece of audio software behind Audacity and
>>> >> Hydrogen)
>>> >> Greg
>>> >
>>> > Yes. It is a truth universally acknowledged (at least by those who look
>>> > at
>>> > things) that if it looks cool, it sounds better. ESPECIALLY  if the gui
>>> > is
>>> > mostly small dark text on a dark background, with deep 3D shadows.
>>> >
>>> > 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"
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael Gogins
>>> Irreducible Productions
>>> http://www.michael-gogins.com
>>> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot 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"
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Gogins
> Irreducible Productions
> http://www.michael-gogins.com
> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>



-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot 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"

... and if you'd like to do Absynth-inspired granular textures,
....and build them yourself in Csound... the partikkel opcode in
Csound might be the way to go :-)
Oeyvind

2010/4/27 Greg Schroeder :
> Got it. Thanks all.
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Michael Gogins 
> wrote:
>>
>> Just downloaded and checked through the current Reaktor manuals. There
>> is indeed nothing like the PVS opcodes or indeed any phase vocoder.
>> The closest thing is some good stuff for granular synthesis.
>>
>> Csound does indeed have a much deeper library of opcodes. What Reaktor
>> excels at is the tight integration of opcodes and GUI elements, and
>> the Reaktor opcodes are well thought out to work together.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Michael Gogins
>>  wrote:
>> > Again, I can't talk about Absynth, but some of Reaktor's canned
>> > patches are quite deep and would be hard to replicate in Csound. There
>> > is a user community that shares patches, too. So, it's not just simple
>> > stuff that comes out of the box already working.
>> >
>> > What is limiting in Reaktor is the lack of anything like the streaming
>> > phase vocoder opcodes, though this may have changed in the years since
>> > I used the thing. Being focussed on MIDI is a big limitation only
>> > partly assuaged by OSC and the depth of some of the patches. The
>> > Csound score language is really one of its strong points since it
>> > supports unlimited polyphony, intonation, dynamics, and tied notes.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Greg Schroeder 
>> > wrote:
>> >> Usable sounds are "in the box" if you get the book, and it never will
>> >> be
>> >> *really* outdated.
>> >> Native Instruments at least occasionally blocks backward compatibility,
>> >> yes?
>> >> I'm not trying to pick I fight, I'm just pretty confused.
>> >> Adapting fltk examples I've seen elsewhere to the examples in the
>> >> csound
>> >> book looks to give me more options than I could ever exhaust, and a
>> >> pretty
>> >> quick route to usable sounds as well.
>> >> If you wanted a 2 oscillator VA synth with a couple ADSRs, an LFO and
>> >> filter
>> >> options, it's a copy and paste operation and a couple characters
>> >> changed in
>> >> an existing .CSD file, even presuming you need midi.
>> >> Does Absynth even respond to OSC yet?
>> >> What am I missing here?
>> >> The value in limiting yourself?
>> >> Greg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Michael Gogins
>> >> 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I do not have experience with Absynth... but I DO have fairly
>> >>> extensive experience with Reaktor (also by Native Instruments) and
>> >>> with the somewhat fancy software synthesizers that come with Cubase.
>> >>>
>> >>> Glitz is not, in my opinion, the primary attraction. I think that with
>> >>> Reaktor and the Cubase synths you can get a usable sound going much
>> >>> faster than with Csound. Reaktor comes with a huge library of pretty
>> >>> good patches that "just work" in the context of a sequencer or laptop
>> >>> type music.
>> >>>
>> >>> On the other hand, when I was keeping up with the Reaktor versions, I
>> >>> was also working with Csound and I ended up using Csound for almost
>> >>> all finished pieces... because I ended up preferring Csound's actual
>> >>> sounds. I did use Reaktor for one piece ("Dark Tower" on _Garden of
>> >>> Algorithms_) because I liked an FM distortion guitar type sound it
>> >>> made.
>> >>>
>> >>> On the other other hand, I am not a typical user, and I would use
>> >>> software synthesis to render either something composed
>> >>> algorithmically, or something composed in notation software or with
>> >>> really fiddly overdubbing.
>> >>>
>> >>> So I think that it depends on the use case. I think a composer who is
>> >>> producing a rock band or scoring a film by working fast in a studio
>> >>> and playing a lot of parts in might find Csound et al. to be much too
>> >>> slow to deliver the goods. I think if you are a perfectionist and not
>> >>> working to some stylistic template, then Csound would be very hard to
>> >>> beat.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Mike
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Richard Dobson
>> >>>  wrote:
>> >>> > On 27/04/2010 00:20, Greg Schroeder wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Dumb question . . .
>> >>> >> Do people really pay that much money for much more limited software
>> >>> >> because it looks pretty?
>> >>> >> (csound was my 3rd piece of audio software behind Audacity and
>> >>> >> Hydrogen)
>> >>> >> Greg
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Yes. It is a truth universally acknowledged (at least by those who
>> >>> > look
>> >>> > at
>> >>> > things) that if it looks cool, it sounds better. ESPECIALLY  if the
>> >>> > gui
>> >>> > is
>> >>> > mostly small dark text on a dark background, with deep 3D shadows.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > 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"
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Michael Gogins
>> >>> Irreducible Productions
>> >>> http://www.michael-gogins.com
>> >>> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot 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"
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Michael Gogins
>> > Irreducible Productions
>> > http://www.michael-gogins.com
>> > Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Gogins
>> Irreducible Productions
>> http://www.michael-gogins.com
>> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot 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"