I would dispute that.

On 13 Jul 2011, at 18:45, Anthony Palomba wrote:

> Max6 is going to rock!

Dr Victor Lazzarini
Senior Lecturer
Dept. of Music
NUI Maynooth Ireland
tel.: +353 1 708 3545
Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie





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"

so would i ...

when i read zicarelli's announcement (thanks peiman to point on it), i
see mainly a reinforcement of the path which has taken the line with
max5 and the joined venture with live: make it easier to learn, make it
faster to produce sound.

'make it easier to learn': this is indeed a quality, and i wished we
could bring csound documentation to the point the max documentation has
been since at least a decade. but real learning has necessarily
something which is NOT easy - for instance in this field learning how
dsp works, to program your own "instruments" and so on -, and my
impression is that they want to reduce this part of the max programming
language.

because they want to make more money by getting more customers.

'make it faster to produce sound': i do see that ableton live has
qualities (in stability, documentation and whatever), and i do accept
people who like working in live and are happy to realize their music
there. but i do not accept at all that the rapidity of putting some
effects together has anything to do with making music in a deeper sense.
looking for one's own music is always "slow" in a way; it is slow if you
go beyond the easy but superficial ways, because you need time to ask
yourself about what music you like to create, and you need time to
create it in a original way.

again my impression is that max6 will not go in this direction but tries
to facilitate the easy combination of standard modules and similar
approaches. because they want to make more money by getting more customers.

well, maxmsp is no free software, so this is kind of a "natural"
process. but in my impression, there are very few things to be happy
about the development of this program.

	joachim



Am 16.07.2011 18:46, schrieb Victor Lazzarini:
> I would dispute that.
> 
> On 13 Jul 2011, at 18:45, Anthony Palomba wrote:
> 
>> Max6 is going to rock!
> 
> Dr Victor Lazzarini
> Senior Lecturer
> Dept. of Music
> NUI Maynooth Ireland
> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 have no idea why cycling74 stopped developing pluggo

i don't know whether they said anything about it, or whether this is
part of the secrets of a company (the council of the gods). but i
assume, there are at least two reasons:
1) it is cheaper for cycling not to continue developing/supporting
pluggo. in other words: when you continue developing it, you have a lot
of work (in this particular case also because of the different daw
applications etc).
2) they promised live to be exclusive to live, as they get many new
customers because of this deal with live.

	joachim


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"

2011/7/16 Anthony Palomba :
> The whole
> integrated
> environment of Max and Live is hard to beat.

What is Live? What kind of stuff Live does?
Is it a framework to apply audio plugins or something?


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 would dispute the anti Max/Live sentiments here - Live is certainly not needed to run Max, nor is it a part of it.
C74 simply worked with Live to produce a product that extends both their capabilities. And that gives flow on benefits in many ways.

PartikellAudio's Hadron synth leverages M4L to realise a CSound orchestra. It can also be used for SuperCollider patches and control.
Pluggo merely changed form slightly, it is still kind of there and 'PlugTastic' will be even better than original Pluggo imho
M4L actually has been used to produce multichannel-spatialisation out of Live.

FTM&Co are quite amazing tools for matrix/vector stuff as is Jitter - it's not just for audio.
Jamoma is also a quite amazing open project within Max

64-bit audio sounds good to me, as does the 'code-generation' for maximising available computation
VST's can be used in Max as can AU's, or you can write your own effects in any number of languages, including csound 	
You can develop your  own DSP objects, for within max or through Jamomas platform, in C, C++, Objective C with good support.
There is a quite active and open Max-dev community, the speed with which Kinect hardware was available for use was very fast.

I really don't see that they are 'dumbing it down'. And what is wrong with getting sound out quickly? Training wheels only, to be taken off later. Isn't that what all the various 'modern' front-ends like QuteCsound, Blue etc are all about? An alternative to the console/command line to make things simpler/easier/accessable/saleable/etc?.
I also don't buy the 'it's not free' argument - People could package up Csound into saleable products can't they? I don't see how that changes the core product. I also do not see that PD is essentially better because it is 'free'.

And I have heard equally bad music out of every sound application I have used, including Max and Csound. I have heard csound comps that sound like your average Live hack - boring techno music. I have also heard beautiful amazing pieces worth many of them.

Although I paid for it , for me Max is 'free as in free thought' because I am free to do with it whatever I please. I find it far freezer than CSound which I largely gave up on a while ago because it was not progressing, have tried to get back into it several times but not quite got there . . . 

To quote Frank 'Have I offended anyone yet?' Sorry.
And I guess maybe I will have another hack at CSound again soon.

Cheers All

Macciza Macpherson
macciza@me.com
Brian Moore  guitar, Roland VG99,VG8 & FC300, YamahaVL 70m, KMI StringPort & SoftStep



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"

Macciza Macpherson wrote:
> I would dispute the anti Max/Live sentiments here ...
>   

Although I don't use any C74 products I see no reason why they wouldn't 
be nice products. The people involved with the company have long and 
honorable histories with the general community of computer-based musicians.

WRT their commercial aspect: The reasons I don't use any C74 or IRCAM 
software include 1) its cost is prohibitive to my budget, 2) there's 
absolutely and incontrovertibly no access to its source code, 3) I have 
no guarantee of its survival into the next year, and 4) none of it runs 
on Linux (an astonishingly bad - though not at all surprising - decision).

Many of us here have tolerated commercial software life-cycles and have 
decided that we simply don't want to go that way any longer.

> I really don't see that they are 'dumbing it down'. And what is wrong with getting sound out quickly? Training wheels only, to be taken off later. Isn't that what all the various 'modern' front-ends like QuteCsound, Blue etc are all about? An alternative to the console/command line to make things simpler/easier/accessable/saleable/etc?.
>   

No, not really. If you've used blue you know it's nothing like a set of 
training wheels. QuteCsound might be pressed into the definition but I 
don't consider it much of a hand-holder either. Those environments are 
systems for integrating a workflow. They also represent personal visions 
of Csound-based toolkits, and of course their visions may or may not 
coincide with my own

> I also don't buy the 'it's not free' argument - People could package up Csound into saleable products can't they? I don't see how that changes the core product. I also do not see that PD is essentially better because it is 'free'.
>   

Definitely agreed. The implication that free is better is valid in some 
respects, but those respects have little to do with sound quality, 
applicability to purpose, usability, etc. Where free is better is 
primarily in the domains of budget and access. Curiously, they stand in 
an inverse relationship in the commercial world - no matter how much I 
pay for C74's software they will never offer their source code to me 
without cumbersome licensing and other restrictions. There's absolutely 
zero freedom in that respect.

> And I have heard equally bad music out of every sound application I have used, including Max and Csound. I have heard csound comps that sound like your average Live hack - boring techno music. I have also heard beautiful amazing pieces worth many of them.
>
>   

I listen to Gregorian chant and music by Hildegard von Bingen daily to 
remind myself how few resources are required for beautiful music. I've 
heard excellent music made with a Commodore C64 and I've heard crap 
played on a $3000 classical guitar. The tool is neither the music nor 
the musician, and I'm Old Skool enough to believe that a compleat 
musician should not be defined by his tools.

> Although I paid for it , for me Max is 'free as in free thought' because I am free to do with it whatever I please. I find it far freezer than CSound which I largely gave up on a while ago because it was not progressing, have tried to get back into it several times but not quite got there . . . 

"Csound not progressing" is an interesting POV. And incidentally, *you* 
may be free to do with it (C74's software) as you please, which 
indicates that there's clearly no need for you to access their source 
code, i.e. the software does for you what you want it to do, and that is 
an undeniably Good Thing. However, *I* will most certainly be frustrated 
by that same lack of access the first time I hit a snag and am told that 
"we'll consider adding your recommendations to our queue of users 
suggestions". Acquiescence to the company's bug-fix and release schedule 
is not free enough for me.

But before you think I'm a total advocate of free software, please note 
that I'm a registered owner of Pianoteq, Renoise, the linuxDSP plugins, 
some of the Loomer synths, and probably a few other closed-source 
products. Typically I'll only buy software if I can't find an 
open-source equivalent or if the software has other strong selling 
points. Max/MSP is saddled with too many restrictions for my budget (its 
first requirement here is a new computer), and Pd is quite a capable 
environment if I want a graphic patching system.

> To quote Frank 'Have I offended anyone yet?' Sorry.
>   

No offense taken here, I think you have a valid point of view and you 
have stated it without trying to provoke anyone. We are all free to make 
our own choices, and it is most important that the choices we make work 
for our purposes.

I'll add one more note regarding Apple. I've never owned any of their 
products, and I had been thinking about purchasing a Mac. Not long ago I 
gave a presentation at Virginia Tech where I met Brad Garton and Peter 
Kirn. We had quite a conversaion about Apple, the Apps Store, the 
licensing conditions, and above all the hostility that Apple bears 
towards open-source development. Perhaps "hostility" is too strong a 
word, but after our conversations and their comments about the company I 
decided to forego the purchase. Peter stated that as long as I planned 
to use the well-known commercial packages I'd probably do all right, but 
both he and Brad were quite critical about Apple wrt open-source tools 
and development. They were also critical about the relatively short 
lives of Apple's hardware and the sad state of customer service they've 
experienced from the company.

> And I guess maybe I will have another hack at CSound again soon.
>   

It will always be here for you, it has no "company" that will disappear 
with its source code, and you will always be welcome into its community 
of users and developers. You will never have to pay a dime for it, and 
if you have the skills and/or inclination you can change it to be 
anything you like. As opposed to what I can do with the software I 
purchased from Microsoft or Voyetra or Tascam or Opcode or [your 
favorite closed-source project here] ... :)

Best regards,

Dave Phillips


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"

Although I prefer open source software for many reasons, some of them
musical, I must take issue with your judgment on the sound quality of
music made with MaxMSP. I have heard pieces at the ICMCs of the past
decade the composers of which assured me they were made with Max, and
the sound quality was neither better nor worse than that of pieces
that I know were made either with Csound or simply by using an editor
and a bunch of processing plugins.

Regards,
Mike

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Victor Lazzarini
 wrote:
> There have been many eloquent elaborations on this, so I will not go on.
> Suffice it to say that once a piece of software is not free (as in free
> thought), it starts to loose its appeal to me, let alone its capability to
> rock.
> Also there is something about the sound quality of music made with MaxMSP
> that disappoints me.
> Victor
> On 16 Jul 2011, at 19:01, Anthony Palomba wrote:
>
> Oh really? Please elaborate...
>
>
>
>
> -ap
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Victor Lazzarini
>  wrote:
>>
>> I would dispute that.
>>
>> On 13 Jul 2011, at 18:45, Anthony Palomba wrote:
>>
>>> Max6 is going to rock!
>>
>> Dr Victor Lazzarini
>> Senior Lecturer
>> Dept. of Music
>> NUI Maynooth Ireland
>> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
>> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 Victor Lazzarini
> Senior Lecturer
> Dept. of Music
> NUI Maynooth Ireland
> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>
>
>



-- 
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"

on 2011-07-17 at 11:09 Michael Gogins wrote:

> I have heard pieces at the ICMCs of the past
>decade the composers of which assured me they were made with Max, and
>the sound quality was neither better nor worse than that of pieces
>that I know were made either with Csound or simply by using an editor
>and a bunch of processing plugins.


and i think that, considering its price, that itself is very
"disappointing", which is what victor said...


>On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Victor Lazzarini
> wrote:
>> Also there is something about the sound quality of music made with
>> MaxMSP that disappoints me.
>> Victor


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"

Well, my point is simply that the basic technology of digital signal
processing on computers is mature and mostly in the public domain, so
that there is no technical reason for all implementations not to be at
a more or less similar level of quality. You have your basic filter,
your biquad filter, your interpolating oscillator, your sampler, your
exponential envelope generator, your random number generator, your
nested allpass reverberator, and it would be very weird indeed if one
brand of this stuff was noticeably better than some other brand. Then
you have your physical models and your phase vocoders, technology that
is both somewhat more recent and considerably more complicated, and
you can easily begin to hear differences. But even there although I
hear differences, I don't necessarily hear differences in technical or
esthetic quality, or if I do hear differences in quality they don't
always favor Csound.

Of course this does NOT apply to more recent techniques in DSP or to
the overall architecture of the software sythesizer, both of which are
not nearly so established.

Regards,
Mike

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 12:27 PM, luis jure  wrote:
>
> on 2011-07-17 at 11:09 Michael Gogins wrote:
>
>> I have heard pieces at the ICMCs of the past
>>decade the composers of which assured me they were made with Max, and
>>the sound quality was neither better nor worse than that of pieces
>>that I know were made either with Csound or simply by using an editor
>>and a bunch of processing plugins.
>
>
> and i think that, considering its price, that itself is very
> "disappointing", which is what victor said...
>
>
>>On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>> wrote:
>>> Also there is something about the sound quality of music made with
>>> MaxMSP that disappoints me.
>>> Victor
>
>
> 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"

on 2011-07-17 at 17:29 peiman khosravi wrote:

>I don't think that is what Victor meant.

probably not... my previous mail was completely useless. basically, i
agree with what michael says in his last mail.


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"