• It crashes all the time on me. I am using Windows XP by the way.

• I tried rendering a couple of csd files and it gave me a file much longer than what the file was supposed to be or it did not render at all.

• On the last release of Csound, I had used QuteCsound a little but I had my files disappear or become erased by the application, therefore the Csound gui was my primary interface which is gone now.

Antony:

I am the author and maintainer of the Windows installers and the
Doppler opcode.

As I have mentioned before on this list, I am out of town on my day
job and not available to work on Csound right now.

QuteCsound never crashed on me (I am using Windows XP also), but the
wrong version of QuteCsound is included in the installer for float
Csound. Double Csound should be fine, I will fix the float version
when I get back. If you are using the double version of Csound, could
you send more information about your crashes?

When I get back next week, I will address these issues. I will
document doppler, add and document the signal flow graph opcodes which
I am using daily now, and I will fix the QuteCsound version in the
float installer.

If you are getting longer files I suspect that you are using a
different soundfile format than you think you are, check all the
various places where options are set (CsOptions, QuteCsound,
.csoundrc). Look at the Csound messages also, Csound prints the format
being used.

About Luajit, it is simply Lua with a just-in-time compiler. It can be
used to run the Csound Lua examples or, for that matter, any other Lua
program. Lua is such a small and lightweight programming language that
I included it in the Csound installer. You can do anything with Lua
that you can with Python, basically. If you don't want it, don't
install it. It won't hurt anything if you do install it, there aren't
any parts of Csound that will want to load it.

Hope this helps,
Mike





On 10/14/09, Anthony Palomba  wrote:
> I have not installed 5.11 yet, but I have never been a fan of QuteCsound.
> On windows, I think WinXound is much better...
> http://winxound.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=33976
> Then again, I do not do any gui stuff in csound, I load my csd files in
> Max/MSP/csound~
> and build a real interface.
>
> But I also know that there are cross platform considerations in picking
> QuteCsound.
>
> Come on Steve, thare are so many tools out there for using csound. Switching
> to Supercollider just becuase csound gui is not there is like throwing the
> baby
> out with the bath water.
>
>
> Anthony
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Peiman Khosravi
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Why not run csound from the terminal (DOS)? It is almost as easy to use as
>> csoundGui, which was never fully functional anyway.
>> As for you other problems maybe you should send a bug report on the
>> mailing
>> list with your CSDs attached? It may be a simple problem and easily
>> solvable.
>>
>> It is a good idea to try out supercollider anyway. It is a very powerful
>> program but not a replacement for csound. They are good for different
>> applications. I don't see why you should try and move to supercollider
>> just
>> because csoundgui is no longer released, particularly as it s now replaced
>> with much more powerful interface. It doesn't make sense that QuteCsound
>> deleted your CSDs, can you perhaps send a bug report to the QuteCsound
>> list?
>>
>> Best
>> Peiman
>>
>> On 14 Oct 2009, at 19:00, Steve Bradley wrote:
>>
>> Dear Csound list,
>>
>> I have been an avid user of Csound for a long time now but I must say that
>> I am disappointed in this latest release for the following reasons:
>>
>> First, there appears to be no more Csound gui which I used on a regular
>> basis to test and render csd files. The default appears to be QuteCsound
>> which in my opinion is lacking for several reasons:
>>
>>
>>    - It crashes all the time on me. I am using Windows XP by the way.
>>    - I tried rendering a couple of csd files and it gave me a file much
>>    longer than what the file was supposed to be or it did not render at
>> all.
>>    - On the last release of Csound, I had used QuteCsound a little but I
>>    had my files disappear or become erased by the application, therefore
>> the
>>    Csound gui was my primary interface which is gone now.
>>
>>
>> This is my main gripe with Csound 5.11. I don`t feel that it is fair that
>> the Csound gui which has been around for years has been taken away from us
>> users, only to have an application that has promise but is not ready yet
>> for
>> steady usage forced upon everyone for the sake of making beginners more
>> comfortable.
>>
>> My next observation is concerning Luajit. What is that? There is no
>> documentation that I can find to run that with Csound and the tutorial is
>> python only. I have never seen many postings discussing Lua and its usage
>> in
>> regards to Csound so why is it suddenly a prominent part of the
>> installation
>> especially with no manual or anything else to help get started in that
>> direction if it is wished to do so.
>>
>> Finally, I saw mention of a Doppler opcode to be added and that is in the
>> release notes as well but there is nothing to found about that in the
>> manual
>> or program. What is the point of mentioning an opcode when it does not
>> exist
>> yet?
>>
>> Since there appears to be no Csound gui anymore and no easy way to render
>> files, I have two choices left. Either abandon Csound for Supercollider
>> completely or just install the old version and watch it become antiquated
>> very quickly. I know that a lot of work went into this release as does
>> every
>> release, but I feel that there was too much done and discarded in a belief
>> that Csound was broken or not user-friendly enough.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Steve B.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
>> now. 
>>
>>
>>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> 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 this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

----- Original Message -----

From: Anthony Palomba

To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk

Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:44 PM

Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Csound 5.11 Disappointment

I have not installed 5.11 yet, but I have never been a fan of QuteCsound.
On windows, I think WinXound is much better...
http://winxound.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=33976
Then again, I do not do any gui stuff in csound, I load my csd files in Max/MSP/csound~
and build a real interface.

But I also know that there are cross platform considerations in picking QuteCsound.

Come on Steve, thare are so many tools out there for using csound. Switching
to Supercollider just becuase csound gui is not there is like throwing the baby
out with the bath water.


Anthony

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Peiman Khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

Why not run csound from the terminal (DOS)? It is almost as easy to use as csoundGui, which was never fully functional anyway.

As for you other problems maybe you should send a bug report on the mailing list with your CSDs attached? It may be a simple problem and easily solvable. 

It is a good idea to try out supercollider anyway. It is a very powerful program but not a replacement for csound. They are good for different applications. I don't see why you should try and move to supercollider just because csoundgui is no longer released, particularly as it s now replaced with much more powerful interface. It doesn't make sense that QuteCsound deleted your CSDs, can you perhaps send a bug report to the QuteCsound list? 

Best

Peiman

On 14 Oct 2009, at 19:00, Steve Bradley wrote:

Dear Csound list,
 
I have been an avid user of Csound for a long time now but I must say that I am disappointed in this latest release for the following reasons:
 
First, there appears to be no more Csound gui which I used on a regular basis to test and render csd files. The default appears to be QuteCsound which in my opinion is lacking for several reasons:
 

• It crashes all the time on me. I am using Windows XP by the way.
• I tried rendering a couple of csd files and it gave me a file much longer than what the file was supposed to be or it did not render at all.
• On the last release of Csound, I had used QuteCsound a little but I had my files disappear or become erased by the application, therefore the Csound gui was my primary interface which is gone now.

 
This is my main gripe with Csound 5.11. I don`t feel that it is fair that the Csound gui which has been around for years has been taken away from us users, only to have an application that has promise but is not ready yet for steady usage forced upon everyone for the sake of making beginners more comfortable. 
 
My next observation is concerning Luajit. What is that? There is no documentation that I can find to run that with Csound and the tutorial is python only. I have never seen many postings discussing Lua and its usage in regards to Csound so why is it suddenly a prominent part of the installation especially with no manual or anything else to help get started in that direction if it is wished to do so. 
 
Finally, I saw mention of a Doppler opcode to be added and that is in the release notes as well but there is nothing to found about that in the manual or program. What is the point of mentioning an opcode when it does not exist yet?
 
Since there appears to be no Csound gui anymore and no easy way to render files, I have two choices left. Either abandon Csound for Supercollider completely or just install the old version and watch it become antiquated very quickly. I know that a lot of work went into this release as does every release, but I feel that there was too much done and discarded in a belief that Csound was broken or not user-friendly enough. 
 
Sincerely,
 
Steve B. 

---

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

Hi,

A couple of ideas:

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Steve Bradley  wrote:
> Dear Csound list,
>
> I have been an avid user of Csound for a long time now but I must say that I
> am disappointed in this latest release for the following reasons:
>
> First, there appears to be no more Csound gui which I used on a regular
> basis to test and render csd files. The default appears to be QuteCsound
> which in my opinion is lacking for several reasons:
>
> It crashes all the time on me. I am using Windows XP by the way.
>

let me know if you can reproduce the problem, and send a csd. I'll do
my best to fix it.

> I tried rendering a couple of csd files and it gave me a file much longer
> than what the file was supposed to be or it did not render at all.

There are some conceptual changes from csound5gui. You can use the
render button to generate files, and the play button to render in
realtime. Do you mean that the file was longer in time? Did it have
silence at the end or was the audio file bigger? Can you post the csd
exhibiting this problem?
The actual csd file from QuteCsound will be larger as it will contain
the extra widget section. If you don't want the widgets, you can
disable saving of widgets in the preferences, that way the csd you see
is the csd you save.

> On the last release of Csound, I had used QuteCsound a little but I had my
> files disappear or become erased by the application, therefore the Csound
> gui was my primary interface which is gone now.
>

You could still use the old csound5gui. This is somewhat hacky but it
should work. Install a previous version of csound and copy the
csound5gui.exe file from the csound directory. Install the new version
of csound and then use the older csound5gui.

>
> This is my main gripe with Csound 5.11. I don`t feel that it is fair that
> the Csound gui which has been around for years has been taken away from us
> users, only to have an application that has promise but is not ready yet for
> steady usage forced upon everyone for the sake of making beginners more
> comfortable.
>
> My next observation is concerning Luajit. What is that? There is no
> documentation that I can find to run that with Csound and the tutorial is
> python only. I have never seen many postings discussing Lua and its usage in
> regards to Csound so why is it suddenly a prominent part of the installation
> especially with no manual or anything else to help get started in that
> direction if it is wished to do so.
>
> Finally, I saw mention of a Doppler opcode to be added and that is in the
> release notes as well but there is nothing to found about that in the manual
> or program. What is the point of mentioning an opcode when it does not exist
> yet?
>

Documentation is a time consuming and boring task that developers
usually try to avoid or at the best of times procrastinate...
The doppler opcode is actually there in csound, but it doesn't have a
manual entry yet.

Cheers,
Andrés


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Dear Csounders,

Thank you for your replies and suggestions. I did not mean to make anyone upset by my last posting and I was letting my frustration dictate my words. That being said though, I still stand by what I originally wrote.

First of all I tried the hack that Andres suggested for using the old Csnd gui from 5.10. This did not work though as it spit out an error message in regards to the wrong version of Python used. I have 2.6 installed right now as that is the one that was supposed to be run with Csound 5.11.

Second, I know you that several of you asked about which Csd files QuteCsound crashes on and I can say any Csd at this point. I had loaded some basic ones from Boulanger`s tutorial and it will usually play it the first time through and then often crash if I try to play it again. This also happens a lot of the time when I try to render it which I still can not seem to do properly. It just seems to crash eventually no matter what I do or regardless of what Csd I load into it.

I honestly do not think QuteCsound is ready to be the only primary interface for Csound. For instance I cannot even copy text from the Csound manual into it if I want to quickly make a new instrument. I could always copy into the Csnd gui but not QuteCsound forcing me to use a separate editor such as WinXound which is fine, but I do not see why there is no ability copy and paste. Speaking of WinXound which I do like very much; I do not use it as my main interface because I cannot render through it. The way I work on Csound is to use the gui and audition stuff. If I like something I will render it and use that audio later. Only after this process did I usually take the instrument into QuteCsound and try to assign sliders or knobs to it. I like the Csnd gui because it is an easy way to quickly render and make files. Now that it is gone, I no longer have it as a sketchpad for ideas. I do not see why it was taken out completely. I would hope that in future releases that it will return and at least be in the folder if we want to use it.

I do not remember Qutecsound being so unstable when it was separate from the main Csound package. Now it is practically unusable. Again, I am not going to post any Csd files as it crashes on any file that I load into it. There is no error message either. One second it is there and the next it is gone. I am hoping that what Michael said about the wrong version of it being in there is the cause and so I will wait for his fixes to see if that remedies the situation.

Yes, I agree that going to Supercollider exclusively because of this is an over-reaction, but at the same time though the interface for Csound has to be stable for me to use it. Peiman suggested that I use the command line which I would rather not do. It is just not my style and I do not think that anyone should be pigeonholed into using something they do not care for. As to Doppler and Luajit, I read Michael`s posting and I feel there is no problem there. That was me being emotional about this gui issue and I was just complaining at that point to complain. For that I apologize and again I did not mean to make anyone angry.

For the time being, I will wait and see what happens. I can still use 5.10 for everything and will do so in the hope that QuteCsound will become more stable eventually. I will of course try it again once Michael fixes the Float vs Double issue. I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is superior to Csound. I think Supercollider is very cool, but there are things that I do not like about it as well. The code has to be perfect to run the file and the nested expressions can be nasty. I have always liked the way Csound code is laid out in an order from top to bottom that makes sense just by looking at it. Also Victor is right in regards to there being only one interface to Supercollider while Csound has several.

Steve

Dear Mr. Steve,

i'm a beginner in csound, and i can understand your disappointment, but i
don't understand what's the problem about winxsound. By me is a really easy
interface to csound that allow me almost all i need.
I like Qute, but for now i don't need such interface, and same is for Blue.
And yes, qute on windows (i use vista), had some problems, but Mr. Gogins
and Mr. Cabrera, of course, are working on.
Anyway, i would only say that i use last csound (5.11) mainly in Scite and
this is all i need for
study csound in real time or to render an audio files or to experiment
little python programs that uses
csound, etc. I'll find this way really easy.

I hope you'll find your way to use csound (or other if you like).

ciao,
fran.
 



steve dundee wrote:
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Csounders,
> 
> 
> Thank you for your replies and suggestions. I did not mean to make anyone
> upset by my last posting and I was letting my frustration dictate my
> words. That being said though, I still stand by what I originally wrote. 
> 
> 
> First of all I tried the hack that Andres suggested for using the old Csnd
> gui from 5.10. This did not work though as it spit out an error message in
> regards to the wrong version of Python used. I have 2.6 installed right
> now as that is the one that was supposed to be run with Csound 5.11. 
> 
> 
> Second, I know you that several of you asked about which Csd files
> QuteCsound crashes on and I can say any Csd at this point. I had loaded
> some basic ones from Boulanger`s tutorial and it will usually play it the
> first time through and then often crash if I try to play it again. This
> also happens a lot of the time when I try to render it which I still can
> not seem to do properly. It just seems to crash eventually no matter what
> I do or regardless of what Csd I load into it. 
> 
> 
> I honestly do not think QuteCsound is ready to be the only primary
> interface for Csound. For instance I cannot even copy text from the Csound
> manual into it if I want to quickly make a new instrument. I could always
> copy into the Csnd gui but not QuteCsound forcing me to use a separate
> editor such as WinXound which is fine, but I do not see why there is no
> ability copy and paste. Speaking of WinXound which I do like very much; I
> do not use it as my main interface because I cannot render through it. The
> way I work on Csound is to use the gui and audition stuff. If I like
> something I will render it and use that audio later. Only after this
> process did I usually take the instrument into QuteCsound and try to
> assign sliders or knobs to it. I like the Csnd gui because it is an easy
> way to quickly render and make files. Now that it is gone, I no longer
> have it as a sketchpad for ideas. I do not see why it was taken out
> completely. I would hope that in future releases that it will return and
> at least be in the folder if we want to use it. 
> 
> 
> I do not remember Qutecsound being so unstable when it was separate from
> the main Csound package. Now it is practically unusable. Again, I am not
> going to post any Csd files as it crashes on any file that I load into it.
> There is no error message either. One second it is there and the next it
> is gone. I am hoping that what Michael said about the wrong version of it
> being in there is the cause and so I will wait for his fixes to see if
> that remedies the situation. 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree that going to Supercollider exclusively because of this is an
> over-reaction, but at the same time though the interface for Csound has to
> be stable for me to use it. Peiman suggested that I use the command line
> which I would rather not do. It is just not my style and I do not think
> that anyone should be pigeonholed into using something they do not care
> for. As to Doppler and Luajit, I read Michael`s posting and I feel there
> is no problem there. That was me being emotional about this gui issue and
> I was just complaining at that point to complain. For that I apologize and
> again I did not mean to make anyone angry. 
> 
> 
> For the time being, I will wait and see what happens. I can still use 5.10
> for everything and will do so in the hope that QuteCsound will become more
> stable eventually. I will of course try it again once Michael fixes the
> Float vs Double issue. I certainly did not mean to imply that
> Supercollider is superior to Csound. I think Supercollider is very cool,
> but there are things that I do not like about it as well. The code has to
> be perfect to run the file and the nested expressions can be nasty. I have
> always liked the way Csound code is laid out in an order from top to
> bottom that makes sense just by looking at it. Also Victor is right in
> regards to there being only one interface to Supercollider while Csound
> has several. 
> 
> 
> Steve
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:33:37 -0500
> From: apalomba@austin.rr.com
> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Csound 5.11 Disappointment
> 
> I believe it is Steve that brought the issue up.
> 
> I am still using 5.10 :)
> 
> 
> Anthony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Michael Gogins 
> wrote:
> 
> Antony:
> 
> I am the author and maintainer of the Windows installers and the
> Doppler opcode.
> 
> As I have mentioned before on this list, I am out of town on my day
> job and not available to work on Csound right now.
> 
> QuteCsound never crashed on me (I am using Windows XP also), but the
> wrong version of QuteCsound is included in the installer for float
> Csound. Double Csound should be fine, I will fix the float version
> when I get back. If you are using the double version of Csound, could
> you send more information about your crashes?
> 
> When I get back next week, I will address these issues. I will
> document doppler, add and document the signal flow graph opcodes which
> I am using daily now, and I will fix the QuteCsound version in the
> float installer.
> 
> If you are getting longer files I suspect that you are using a
> different soundfile format than you think you are, check all the
> various places where options are set (CsOptions, QuteCsound,
> .csoundrc). Look at the Csound messages also, Csound prints the format
> being used.
> 
> About Luajit, it is simply Lua with a just-in-time compiler. It can be
> used to run the Csound Lua examples or, for that matter, any other Lua
> program. Lua is such a small and lightweight programming language that
> I included it in the Csound installer. You can do anything with Lua
> that you can with Python, basically. If you don't want it, don't
> install it. It won't hurt anything if you do install it, there aren't
> any parts of Csound that will want to load it.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/14/09, Anthony Palomba  wrote:
>> I have not installed 5.11 yet, but I have never been a fan of QuteCsound.
>> On windows, I think WinXound is much better...
>> http://winxound.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=33976
>> Then again, I do not do any gui stuff in csound, I load my csd files in
>> Max/MSP/csound~
>> and build a real interface.
>>
>> But I also know that there are cross platform considerations in picking
>> QuteCsound.
>>
>> Come on Steve, thare are so many tools out there for using csound.
>> Switching
>> to Supercollider just becuase csound gui is not there is like throwing
>> the
>> baby
>> out with the bath water.
>>
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Peiman Khosravi
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Why not run csound from the terminal (DOS)? It is almost as easy to use
>>> as
>>> csoundGui, which was never fully functional anyway.
>>> As for you other problems maybe you should send a bug report on the
>>> mailing
>>> list with your CSDs attached? It may be a simple problem and easily
>>> solvable.
>>>
>>> It is a good idea to try out supercollider anyway. It is a very powerful
>>> program but not a replacement for csound. They are good for different
>>> applications. I don't see why you should try and move to supercollider
>>> just
>>> because csoundgui is no longer released, particularly as it s now
>>> replaced
>>> with much more powerful interface. It doesn't make sense that QuteCsound
>>> deleted your CSDs, can you perhaps send a bug report to the QuteCsound
>>> list?
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Peiman
>>>
>>> On 14 Oct 2009, at 19:00, Steve Bradley wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Csound list,
>>>
>>> I have been an avid user of Csound for a long time now but I must say
>>> that
>>> I am disappointed in this latest release for the following reasons:
>>>
>>> First, there appears to be no more Csound gui which I used on a regular
>>> basis to test and render csd files. The default appears to be QuteCsound
>>> which in my opinion is lacking for several reasons:
>>>
>>>
>>>    - It crashes all the time on me. I am using Windows XP by the way.
>>>    - I tried rendering a couple of csd files and it gave me a file much
>>>    longer than what the file was supposed to be or it did not render at
>>> all.
>>>    - On the last release of Csound, I had used QuteCsound a little but I
>>>    had my files disappear or become erased by the application, therefore
>>> the
>>>    Csound gui was my primary interface which is gone now.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is my main gripe with Csound 5.11. I don`t feel that it is fair
>>> that
>>> the Csound gui which has been around for years has been taken away from
>>> us
>>> users, only to have an application that has promise but is not ready yet
>>> for
>>> steady usage forced upon everyone for the sake of making beginners more
>>> comfortable.
>>>
>>> My next observation is concerning Luajit. What is that? There is no
>>> documentation that I can find to run that with Csound and the tutorial
>>> is
>>> python only. I have never seen many postings discussing Lua and its
>>> usage
>>> in
>>> regards to Csound so why is it suddenly a prominent part of the
>>> installation
>>> especially with no manual or anything else to help get started in that
>>> direction if it is wished to do so.
>>>
>>> Finally, I saw mention of a Doppler opcode to be added and that is in
>>> the
>>> release notes as well but there is nothing to found about that in the
>>> manual
>>> or program. What is the point of mentioning an opcode when it does not
>>> exist
>>> yet?
>>>
>>> Since there appears to be no Csound gui anymore and no easy way to
>>> render
>>> files, I have two choices left. Either abandon Csound for Supercollider
>>> completely or just install the old version and watch it become
>>> antiquated
>>> very quickly. I know that a lot of work went into this release as does
>>> every
>>> release, but I feel that there was too much done and discarded in a
>>> belief
>>> that Csound was broken or not user-friendly enough.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Steve B.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign
>>> up
>>> now. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> 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 this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>  		 	   		  
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Csound-5.11-Disappointment-tp25896063p25907257.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I'm also experiencing problems with erratic crashes from qutecsound.
It seems completely inconsistent too, and also appears to be worse in
later releases than earlier ones. I've been trying to build QuteCsound
on windows for some time now and I've had no luck. I've emailed the qt
community with my problems but have yet to receive a reply. Hopefully
they'll get back to me shortly.

2009/10/15 francibal :
>
> Dear Mr. Steve,
>
> i'm a beginner in csound, and i can understand your disappointment, but i
> don't understand what's the problem about winxsound. By me is a really easy
> interface to csound that allow me almost all i need.
> I like Qute, but for now i don't need such interface, and same is for Blue.
> And yes, qute on windows (i use vista), had some problems, but Mr. Gogins
> and Mr. Cabrera, of course, are working on.
> Anyway, i would only say that i use last csound (5.11) mainly in Scite and
> this is all i need for
> study csound in real time or to render an audio files or to experiment
> little python programs that uses
> csound, etc. I'll find this way really easy.
>
> I hope you'll find your way to use csound (or other if you like).
>
> ciao,
> fran.
>
>
>
>
> steve dundee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Csounders,
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your replies and suggestions. I did not mean to make anyone
>> upset by my last posting and I was letting my frustration dictate my
>> words. That being said though, I still stand by what I originally wrote.
>>
>>
>> First of all I tried the hack that Andres suggested for using the old Csnd
>> gui from 5.10. This did not work though as it spit out an error message in
>> regards to the wrong version of Python used. I have 2.6 installed right
>> now as that is the one that was supposed to be run with Csound 5.11.
>>
>>
>> Second, I know you that several of you asked about which Csd files
>> QuteCsound crashes on and I can say any Csd at this point. I had loaded
>> some basic ones from Boulanger`s tutorial and it will usually play it the
>> first time through and then often crash if I try to play it again. This
>> also happens a lot of the time when I try to render it which I still can
>> not seem to do properly. It just seems to crash eventually no matter what
>> I do or regardless of what Csd I load into it.
>>
>>
>> I honestly do not think QuteCsound is ready to be the only primary
>> interface for Csound. For instance I cannot even copy text from the Csound
>> manual into it if I want to quickly make a new instrument. I could always
>> copy into the Csnd gui but not QuteCsound forcing me to use a separate
>> editor such as WinXound which is fine, but I do not see why there is no
>> ability copy and paste. Speaking of WinXound which I do like very much; I
>> do not use it as my main interface because I cannot render through it. The
>> way I work on Csound is to use the gui and audition stuff. If I like
>> something I will render it and use that audio later. Only after this
>> process did I usually take the instrument into QuteCsound and try to
>> assign sliders or knobs to it. I like the Csnd gui because it is an easy
>> way to quickly render and make files. Now that it is gone, I no longer
>> have it as a sketchpad for ideas. I do not see why it was taken out
>> completely. I would hope that in future releases that it will return and
>> at least be in the folder if we want to use it.
>>
>>
>> I do not remember Qutecsound being so unstable when it was separate from
>> the main Csound package. Now it is practically unusable. Again, I am not
>> going to post any Csd files as it crashes on any file that I load into it.
>> There is no error message either. One second it is there and the next it
>> is gone. I am hoping that what Michael said about the wrong version of it
>> being in there is the cause and so I will wait for his fixes to see if
>> that remedies the situation.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I agree that going to Supercollider exclusively because of this is an
>> over-reaction, but at the same time though the interface for Csound has to
>> be stable for me to use it. Peiman suggested that I use the command line
>> which I would rather not do. It is just not my style and I do not think
>> that anyone should be pigeonholed into using something they do not care
>> for. As to Doppler and Luajit, I read Michael`s posting and I feel there
>> is no problem there. That was me being emotional about this gui issue and
>> I was just complaining at that point to complain. For that I apologize and
>> again I did not mean to make anyone angry.
>>
>>
>> For the time being, I will wait and see what happens. I can still use 5.10
>> for everything and will do so in the hope that QuteCsound will become more
>> stable eventually. I will of course try it again once Michael fixes the
>> Float vs Double issue. I certainly did not mean to imply that
>> Supercollider is superior to Csound. I think Supercollider is very cool,
>> but there are things that I do not like about it as well. The code has to
>> be perfect to run the file and the nested expressions can be nasty. I have
>> always liked the way Csound code is laid out in an order from top to
>> bottom that makes sense just by looking at it. Also Victor is right in
>> regards to there being only one interface to Supercollider while Csound
>> has several.
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:33:37 -0500
>> From: apalomba@austin.rr.com
>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Csound 5.11 Disappointment
>>
>> I believe it is Steve that brought the issue up.
>>
>> I am still using 5.10 :)
>>
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Michael Gogins 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Antony:
>>
>> I am the author and maintainer of the Windows installers and the
>> Doppler opcode.
>>
>> As I have mentioned before on this list, I am out of town on my day
>> job and not available to work on Csound right now.
>>
>> QuteCsound never crashed on me (I am using Windows XP also), but the
>> wrong version of QuteCsound is included in the installer for float
>> Csound. Double Csound should be fine, I will fix the float version
>> when I get back. If you are using the double version of Csound, could
>> you send more information about your crashes?
>>
>> When I get back next week, I will address these issues. I will
>> document doppler, add and document the signal flow graph opcodes which
>> I am using daily now, and I will fix the QuteCsound version in the
>> float installer.
>>
>> If you are getting longer files I suspect that you are using a
>> different soundfile format than you think you are, check all the
>> various places where options are set (CsOptions, QuteCsound,
>> .csoundrc). Look at the Csound messages also, Csound prints the format
>> being used.
>>
>> About Luajit, it is simply Lua with a just-in-time compiler. It can be
>> used to run the Csound Lua examples or, for that matter, any other Lua
>> program. Lua is such a small and lightweight programming language that
>> I included it in the Csound installer. You can do anything with Lua
>> that you can with Python, basically. If you don't want it, don't
>> install it. It won't hurt anything if you do install it, there aren't
>> any parts of Csound that will want to load it.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/09, Anthony Palomba  wrote:
>>> I have not installed 5.11 yet, but I have never been a fan of QuteCsound.
>>> On windows, I think WinXound is much better...
>>> http://winxound.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=33976
>>> Then again, I do not do any gui stuff in csound, I load my csd files in
>>> Max/MSP/csound~
>>> and build a real interface.
>>>
>>> But I also know that there are cross platform considerations in picking
>>> QuteCsound.
>>>
>>> Come on Steve, thare are so many tools out there for using csound.
>>> Switching
>>> to Supercollider just becuase csound gui is not there is like throwing
>>> the
>>> baby
>>> out with the bath water.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Peiman Khosravi
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Why not run csound from the terminal (DOS)? It is almost as easy to use
>>>> as
>>>> csoundGui, which was never fully functional anyway.
>>>> As for you other problems maybe you should send a bug report on the
>>>> mailing
>>>> list with your CSDs attached? It may be a simple problem and easily
>>>> solvable.
>>>>
>>>> It is a good idea to try out supercollider anyway. It is a very powerful
>>>> program but not a replacement for csound. They are good for different
>>>> applications. I don't see why you should try and move to supercollider
>>>> just
>>>> because csoundgui is no longer released, particularly as it s now
>>>> replaced
>>>> with much more powerful interface. It doesn't make sense that QuteCsound
>>>> deleted your CSDs, can you perhaps send a bug report to the QuteCsound
>>>> list?
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Peiman
>>>>
>>>> On 14 Oct 2009, at 19:00, Steve Bradley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Csound list,
>>>>
>>>> I have been an avid user of Csound for a long time now but I must say
>>>> that
>>>> I am disappointed in this latest release for the following reasons:
>>>>
>>>> First, there appears to be no more Csound gui which I used on a regular
>>>> basis to test and render csd files. The default appears to be QuteCsound
>>>> which in my opinion is lacking for several reasons:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - It crashes all the time on me. I am using Windows XP by the way.
>>>>    - I tried rendering a couple of csd files and it gave me a file much
>>>>    longer than what the file was supposed to be or it did not render at
>>>> all.
>>>>    - On the last release of Csound, I had used QuteCsound a little but I
>>>>    had my files disappear or become erased by the application, therefore
>>>> the
>>>>    Csound gui was my primary interface which is gone now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is my main gripe with Csound 5.11. I don`t feel that it is fair
>>>> that
>>>> the Csound gui which has been around for years has been taken away from
>>>> us
>>>> users, only to have an application that has promise but is not ready yet
>>>> for
>>>> steady usage forced upon everyone for the sake of making beginners more
>>>> comfortable.
>>>>
>>>> My next observation is concerning Luajit. What is that? There is no
>>>> documentation that I can find to run that with Csound and the tutorial
>>>> is
>>>> python only. I have never seen many postings discussing Lua and its
>>>> usage
>>>> in
>>>> regards to Csound so why is it suddenly a prominent part of the
>>>> installation
>>>> especially with no manual or anything else to help get started in that
>>>> direction if it is wished to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, I saw mention of a Doppler opcode to be added and that is in
>>>> the
>>>> release notes as well but there is nothing to found about that in the
>>>> manual
>>>> or program. What is the point of mentioning an opcode when it does not
>>>> exist
>>>> yet?
>>>>
>>>> Since there appears to be no Csound gui anymore and no easy way to
>>>> render
>>>> files, I have two choices left. Either abandon Csound for Supercollider
>>>> completely or just install the old version and watch it become
>>>> antiquated
>>>> very quickly. I know that a lot of work went into this release as does
>>>> every
>>>> release, but I feel that there was too much done and discarded in a
>>>> belief
>>>> that Csound was broken or not user-friendly enough.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Steve B.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign
>>>> up
>>>> now. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>> 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 this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Csound-5.11-Disappointment-tp25896063p25907257.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Individual views of the world are so different!  I am very happy with
5.11; runs a treat and new festures I want -- could be better of course
and it will be in 5.12.  BUT...  I do not use Qutesound or CsoundGUI or
such; command line for ever with emacs.

Sure we want to hear complaints.  My only interest is that the only part
of the complaint that relates to 5.11 (as distinct from the GUIs and
surrounding stuff) is the lack of documentation for doppler.  I regret
that, but in reality  I remain very impressed by the work our manual
maintainers have done over the years -- and compared with so many other
packages i use the manual is close to complete.

yes, and I hate writing documentation.

==John ff



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Apart from the issue at the end of the score reported here, qutecsound  
has run
well for me on OSX (at least for my class examples etc).

Victor

On 15 Oct 2009, at 13:23, Rory Walsh wrote:

> I'm also experiencing problems with erratic crashes from qutecsound.
> It seems completely inconsistent too, and also appears to be worse in
> later releases than earlier ones. I've been trying to build QuteCsound
> on windows for some time now and I've had no luck. I've emailed the qt
> community with my problems but have yet to receive a reply. Hopefully
> they'll get back to me shortly.
>
> 2009/10/15 francibal :
>>
>> Dear Mr. Steve,
>>
>> i'm a beginner in csound, and i can understand your disappointment,  
>> but i
>> don't understand what's the problem about winxsound. By me is a  
>> really easy
>> interface to csound that allow me almost all i need.
>> I like Qute, but for now i don't need such interface, and same is  
>> for Blue.
>> And yes, qute on windows (i use vista), had some problems, but Mr.  
>> Gogins
>> and Mr. Cabrera, of course, are working on.
>> Anyway, i would only say that i use last csound (5.11) mainly in  
>> Scite and
>> this is all i need for
>> study csound in real time or to render an audio files or to  
>> experiment
>> little python programs that uses
>> csound, etc. I'll find this way really easy.
>>
>> I hope you'll find your way to use csound (or other if you like).
>>
>> ciao,
>> fran.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> steve dundee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Csounders,
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your replies and suggestions. I did not mean to make  
>>> anyone
>>> upset by my last posting and I was letting my frustration dictate my
>>> words. That being said though, I still stand by what I originally  
>>> wrote.
>>>
>>>
>>> First of all I tried the hack that Andres suggested for using the  
>>> old Csnd
>>> gui from 5.10. This did not work though as it spit out an error  
>>> message in
>>> regards to the wrong version of Python used. I have 2.6 installed  
>>> right
>>> now as that is the one that was supposed to be run with Csound 5.11.
>>>
>>>
>>> Second, I know you that several of you asked about which Csd files
>>> QuteCsound crashes on and I can say any Csd at this point. I had  
>>> loaded
>>> some basic ones from Boulanger`s tutorial and it will usually play  
>>> it the
>>> first time through and then often crash if I try to play it again.  
>>> This
>>> also happens a lot of the time when I try to render it which I  
>>> still can
>>> not seem to do properly. It just seems to crash eventually no  
>>> matter what
>>> I do or regardless of what Csd I load into it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I honestly do not think QuteCsound is ready to be the only primary
>>> interface for Csound. For instance I cannot even copy text from  
>>> the Csound
>>> manual into it if I want to quickly make a new instrument. I could  
>>> always
>>> copy into the Csnd gui but not QuteCsound forcing me to use a  
>>> separate
>>> editor such as WinXound which is fine, but I do not see why there  
>>> is no
>>> ability copy and paste. Speaking of WinXound which I do like very  
>>> much; I
>>> do not use it as my main interface because I cannot render through  
>>> it. The
>>> way I work on Csound is to use the gui and audition stuff. If I like
>>> something I will render it and use that audio later. Only after this
>>> process did I usually take the instrument into QuteCsound and try to
>>> assign sliders or knobs to it. I like the Csnd gui because it is  
>>> an easy
>>> way to quickly render and make files. Now that it is gone, I no  
>>> longer
>>> have it as a sketchpad for ideas. I do not see why it was taken out
>>> completely. I would hope that in future releases that it will  
>>> return and
>>> at least be in the folder if we want to use it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not remember Qutecsound being so unstable when it was  
>>> separate from
>>> the main Csound package. Now it is practically unusable. Again, I  
>>> am not
>>> going to post any Csd files as it crashes on any file that I load  
>>> into it.
>>> There is no error message either. One second it is there and the  
>>> next it
>>> is gone. I am hoping that what Michael said about the wrong  
>>> version of it
>>> being in there is the cause and so I will wait for his fixes to  
>>> see if
>>> that remedies the situation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree that going to Supercollider exclusively because of  
>>> this is an
>>> over-reaction, but at the same time though the interface for  
>>> Csound has to
>>> be stable for me to use it. Peiman suggested that I use the  
>>> command line
>>> which I would rather not do. It is just not my style and I do not  
>>> think
>>> that anyone should be pigeonholed into using something they do not  
>>> care
>>> for. As to Doppler and Luajit, I read Michael`s posting and I feel  
>>> there
>>> is no problem there. That was me being emotional about this gui  
>>> issue and
>>> I was just complaining at that point to complain. For that I  
>>> apologize and
>>> again I did not mean to make anyone angry.
>>>
>>>
>>> For the time being, I will wait and see what happens. I can still  
>>> use 5.10
>>> for everything and will do so in the hope that QuteCsound will  
>>> become more
>>> stable eventually. I will of course try it again once Michael  
>>> fixes the
>>> Float vs Double issue. I certainly did not mean to imply that
>>> Supercollider is superior to Csound. I think Supercollider is very  
>>> cool,
>>> but there are things that I do not like about it as well. The code  
>>> has to
>>> be perfect to run the file and the nested expressions can be  
>>> nasty. I have
>>> always liked the way Csound code is laid out in an order from top to
>>> bottom that makes sense just by looking at it. Also Victor is  
>>> right in
>>> regards to there being only one interface to Supercollider while  
>>> Csound
>>> has several.
>>>
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:33:37 -0500
>>> From: apalomba@austin.rr.com
>>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Csound 5.11 Disappointment
>>>
>>> I believe it is Steve that brought the issue up.
>>>
>>> I am still using 5.10 :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Michael Gogins >> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Antony:
>>>
>>> I am the author and maintainer of the Windows installers and the
>>> Doppler opcode.
>>>
>>> As I have mentioned before on this list, I am out of town on my day
>>> job and not available to work on Csound right now.
>>>
>>> QuteCsound never crashed on me (I am using Windows XP also), but the
>>> wrong version of QuteCsound is included in the installer for float
>>> Csound. Double Csound should be fine, I will fix the float version
>>> when I get back. If you are using the double version of Csound,  
>>> could
>>> you send more information about your crashes?
>>>
>>> When I get back next week, I will address these issues. I will
>>> document doppler, add and document the signal flow graph opcodes  
>>> which
>>> I am using daily now, and I will fix the QuteCsound version in the
>>> float installer.
>>>
>>> If you are getting longer files I suspect that you are using a
>>> different soundfile format than you think you are, check all the
>>> various places where options are set (CsOptions, QuteCsound,
>>> .csoundrc). Look at the Csound messages also, Csound prints the  
>>> format
>>> being used.
>>>
>>> About Luajit, it is simply Lua with a just-in-time compiler. It  
>>> can be
>>> used to run the Csound Lua examples or, for that matter, any other  
>>> Lua
>>> program. Lua is such a small and lightweight programming language  
>>> that
>>> I included it in the Csound installer. You can do anything with Lua
>>> that you can with Python, basically. If you don't want it, don't
>>> install it. It won't hurt anything if you do install it, there  
>>> aren't
>>> any parts of Csound that will want to load it.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/14/09, Anthony Palomba  wrote:
>>>> I have not installed 5.11 yet, but I have never been a fan of  
>>>> QuteCsound.
>>>> On windows, I think WinXound is much better...
>>>> http://winxound.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=33976
>>>> Then again, I do not do any gui stuff in csound, I load my csd  
>>>> files in
>>>> Max/MSP/csound~
>>>> and build a real interface.
>>>>
>>>> But I also know that there are cross platform considerations in  
>>>> picking
>>>> QuteCsound.
>>>>
>>>> Come on Steve, thare are so many tools out there for using csound.
>>>> Switching
>>>> to Supercollider just becuase csound gui is not there is like  
>>>> throwing
>>>> the
>>>> baby
>>>> out with the bath water.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anthony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Peiman Khosravi
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not run csound from the terminal (DOS)? It is almost as easy  
>>>>> to use
>>>>> as
>>>>> csoundGui, which was never fully functional anyway.
>>>>> As for you other problems maybe you should send a bug report on  
>>>>> the
>>>>> mailing
>>>>> list with your CSDs attached? It may be a simple problem and  
>>>>> easily
>>>>> solvable.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a good idea to try out supercollider anyway. It is a very  
>>>>> powerful
>>>>> program but not a replacement for csound. They are good for  
>>>>> different
>>>>> applications. I don't see why you should try and move to  
>>>>> supercollider
>>>>> just
>>>>> because csoundgui is no longer released, particularly as it s now
>>>>> replaced
>>>>> with much more powerful interface. It doesn't make sense that  
>>>>> QuteCsound
>>>>> deleted your CSDs, can you perhaps send a bug report to the  
>>>>> QuteCsound
>>>>> list?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>> Peiman
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14 Oct 2009, at 19:00, Steve Bradley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Csound list,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been an avid user of Csound for a long time now but I  
>>>>> must say
>>>>> that
>>>>> I am disappointed in this latest release for the following  
>>>>> reasons:
>>>>>
>>>>> First, there appears to be no more Csound gui which I used on a  
>>>>> regular
>>>>> basis to test and render csd files. The default appears to be  
>>>>> QuteCsound
>>>>> which in my opinion is lacking for several reasons:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    - It crashes all the time on me. I am using Windows XP by the  
>>>>> way.
>>>>>    - I tried rendering a couple of csd files and it gave me a  
>>>>> file much
>>>>>    longer than what the file was supposed to be or it did not  
>>>>> render at
>>>>> all.
>>>>>    - On the last release of Csound, I had used QuteCsound a  
>>>>> little but I
>>>>>    had my files disappear or become erased by the application,  
>>>>> therefore
>>>>> the
>>>>>    Csound gui was my primary interface which is gone now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is my main gripe with Csound 5.11. I don`t feel that it is  
>>>>> fair
>>>>> that
>>>>> the Csound gui which has been around for years has been taken  
>>>>> away from
>>>>> us
>>>>> users, only to have an application that has promise but is not  
>>>>> ready yet
>>>>> for
>>>>> steady usage forced upon everyone for the sake of making  
>>>>> beginners more
>>>>> comfortable.
>>>>>
>>>>> My next observation is concerning Luajit. What is that? There is  
>>>>> no
>>>>> documentation that I can find to run that with Csound and the  
>>>>> tutorial
>>>>> is
>>>>> python only. I have never seen many postings discussing Lua and  
>>>>> its
>>>>> usage
>>>>> in
>>>>> regards to Csound so why is it suddenly a prominent part of the
>>>>> installation
>>>>> especially with no manual or anything else to help get started  
>>>>> in that
>>>>> direction if it is wished to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, I saw mention of a Doppler opcode to be added and that  
>>>>> is in
>>>>> the
>>>>> release notes as well but there is nothing to found about that  
>>>>> in the
>>>>> manual
>>>>> or program. What is the point of mentioning an opcode when it  
>>>>> does not
>>>>> exist
>>>>> yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there appears to be no Csound gui anymore and no easy way to
>>>>> render
>>>>> files, I have two choices left. Either abandon Csound for  
>>>>> Supercollider
>>>>> completely or just install the old version and watch it become
>>>>> antiquated
>>>>> very quickly. I know that a lot of work went into this release  
>>>>> as does
>>>>> every
>>>>> release, but I feel that there was too much done and discarded  
>>>>> in a
>>>>> belief
>>>>> that Csound was broken or not user-friendly enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve B.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM  
>>>>> protection. Sign
>>>>> up
>>>>> now. 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>> 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 this list.
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>>> "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>>> "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Csound-5.11-Disappointment-tp25896063p25907257.html
>> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>> "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
> "unsubscribe csound"



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hi Steve,

This community tends to be not extremely sensitive and SuperCollider
is not taboo aorund here =).  The replies have not been in the spirit
to tell you you are wrong, but rather what we would do in your
position.
I'm very interested in troubleshooting the problems on Windows.
Unfortunately I can't test it, since I don't have a Windows machine
for development available, but I'm very interested in sorting this and
the crashes on OS X.

Right now, what I've found is that if a csd is stopped before it
finishes there is no problem and it can be run again, but if certain
csds (not all-but not sure where the problem lies) run until the score
finishes, Csound is not cleaned up properly, so running again causes a
crash. This behavior seems not to have been there before, but I can't
find anything that has changed in that respect from last version. I
don't blame Csound itself, because I'm pretty sure the problem lies
with QuteCsound...

Cheers,
Andrés

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Steve Bradley  wrote:
> Dear Csounders,
>
> Again I am not trying to stir the pot here and I am not trying to start a
> flame war between Csound and Supercollider. I was merely pointing out my
> experiences with the new Csound release. Peiman - do I not have the right to
> criticize anything on here? If we can never state our frustrations with
> Csound and we always have to write nicey nice stuff all the time then I
> think there will be problems with it as software and a musical tool. You
> feel that Supercollider is superior than great. I have no problem with that.
> I was merely stating my position.
>
> I am sorry about posting the last message in bold by the way. I had
> spellchecked it in my word processor and it formatted it.
>
> Steve
>
>> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:57:15 -0700
>> From: ilterzouomo@fastwebnet.it
>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> Subject: [Csnd] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Csound 5.11 Disappointment
>>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Steve,
>>
>> i'm a beginner in csound, and i can understand your disappointment, but i
>> don't understand what's the problem about winxsound. By me is a really
>> easy
>> interface to csound that allow me almost all i need.
>> I like Qute, but for now i don't need such interface, and same is for
>> Blue.
>> And yes, qute on windows (i use vista), had some problems, but Mr. Gogins
>> and Mr. Cabrera, of course, are working on.
>> Anyway, i would only say that i use last csound (5.11) mainly in Scite and
>> this is all i need for
>> study csound in real time or to render an audio files or to experiment
>> little python programs that uses
>> csound, etc. I'll find this way really easy.
>>
>> I hope you'll find your way to use csound (or other if you like).
>>
>> ciao,
>> fran.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> steve dundee wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear Csounders,
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you for your replies and suggestions. I did not mean to make
>> > anyone
>> > upset by my last posting and I was letting my frustration dictate my
>> > words. That being said though, I still stand by what I originally wrote.
>> >
>> >
>> > First of all I tried the hack that Andres suggested for using the old
>> > Csnd
>> > gui from 5.10. This did not work though as it spit out an error message
>> > in
>> > regards to the wrong version of Python used. I have 2.6 installed right
>> > now as that is the one that was supposed to be run with Csound 5.11.
>> >
>> >
>> > Second, I know you that several of you asked about which Csd files
>> > QuteCsound crashes on and I can say any Csd at this point. I had loaded
>> > some basic ones from Boulanger`s tutorial and it will usually play it
>> > the
>> > first time through and then often crash if I try to play it again. This
>> > also happens a lot of the time when I try to render it which I still can
>> > not seem to do properly. It just seems to crash eventually no matter
>> > what
>> > I do or regardless of what Csd I load into it.
>> >
>> >
>> > I honestly do not think QuteCsound is ready to be the only primary
>> > interface for Csound. For instance I cannot even copy text from the
>> > Csound
>> > manual into it if I want to quickly make a new instrument. I could
>> > always
>> > copy into the Csnd gui but not QuteCsound forcing me to use a separate
>> > editor such as WinXound which is fine, but I do not see why there is no
>> > ability copy and paste. Speaking of WinXound which I do like very much;
>> > I
>> > do not use it as my main interface because I cannot render through it.
>> > The
>> > way I work on Csound is to use the gui and audition stuff. If I like
>> > something I will render it and use that audio later. Only after this
>> > process did I usually take the instrument into QuteCsound and try to
>> > assign sliders or knobs to it. I like the Csnd gui because it is an easy
>> > way to quickly render and make files. Now that it is gone, I no longer
>> > have it as a sketchpad for ideas. I do not see why it was taken out
>> > completely. I would hope that in future releases that it will return and
>> > at least be in the folder if we want to use it.
>> >
>> >
>> > I do not remember Qutecsound being so unstable when it was separate from
>> > the main Csound package. Now it is practically unusable. Again, I am not
>> > going to post any Csd files as it crashes on any file that I load into
>> > it.
>> > There is no error message either. One second it is there and the next it
>> > is gone. I am hoping that what Michael said about the wrong version of
>> > it
>> > being in there is the cause and so I will wait for his fixes to see if
>> > that remedies the situation.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, I agree that going to Supercollider exclusively because of this is
>> > an
>> > over-reaction, but at the same time though the interface for Csound has
>> > to
>> > be stable for me to use it. Peiman suggested that I use the command line
>> > which I would rather not do. It is just not my style and I do not think
>> > that anyone should be pigeonholed into using something they do not care
>> > for. As to Doppler and Luajit, I read Michael`s posting and I feel there
>> > is no problem there. That was me being emotional about this gui issue
>> > and
>> > I was just complaining at that point to complain. For that I apologize
>> > and
>> > again I did not mean to make anyone angry.
>> >
>> >
>> > For the time being, I will wait and see what happens. I can still use
>> > 5.10
>> > for everything and will do so in the hope that QuteCsound will become
>> > more
>> > stable eventually. I will of course try it again once Michael fixes the
>> > Float vs Double issue. I certainly did not mean to imply that
>> > Supercollider is superior to Csound. I think Supercollider is very cool,
>> > but there are things that I do not like about it as well. The code has
>> > to
>> > be perfect to run the file and the nested expressions can be nasty. I
>> > have
>> > always liked the way Csound code is laid out in an order from top to
>> > bottom that makes sense just by looking at it. Also Victor is right in
>> > regards to there being only one interface to Supercollider while Csound
>> > has several.
>> >
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:33:37 -0500
>> > From: apalomba@austin.rr.com
>> > To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> > Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Csound 5.11 Disappointment
>> >
>> > I believe it is Steve that brought the issue up.
>> >
>> > I am still using 5.10 :)
>> >
>> >
>> > Anthony
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Michael Gogins
>> > 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Antony:
>> >
>> > I am the author and maintainer of the Windows installers and the
>> > Doppler opcode.
>> >
>> > As I have mentioned before on this list, I am out of town on my day
>> > job and not available to work on Csound right now.
>> >
>> > QuteCsound never crashed on me (I am using Windows XP also), but the
>> > wrong version of QuteCsound is included in the installer for float
>> > Csound. Double Csound should be fine, I will fix the float version
>> > when I get back. If you are using the double version of Csound, could
>> > you send more information about your crashes?
>> >
>> > When I get back next week, I will address these issues. I will
>> > document doppler, add and document the signal flow graph opcodes which
>> > I am using daily now, and I will fix the QuteCsound version in the
>> > float installer.
>> >
>> > If you are getting longer files I suspect that you are using a
>> > different soundfile format than you think you are, check all the
>> > various places where options are set (CsOptions, QuteCsound,
>> > .csoundrc). Look at the Csound messages also, Csound prints the format
>> > being used.
>> >
>> > About Luajit, it is simply Lua with a just-in-time compiler. It can be
>> > used to run the Csound Lua examples or, for that matter, any other Lua
>> > program. Lua is such a small and lightweight programming language that
>> > I included it in the Csound installer. You can do anything with Lua
>> > that you can with Python, basically. If you don't want it, don't
>> > install it. It won't hurt anything if you do install it, there aren't
>> > any parts of Csound that will want to load it.
>> >
>> > Hope this helps,
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/14/09, Anthony Palomba  wrote:
>> >> I have not installed 5.11 yet, but I have never been a fan of
>> >> QuteCsound.
>> >> On windows, I think WinXound is much better...
>> >>
>> >> http://winxound.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=33976
>> >> Then again, I do not do any gui stuff in csound, I load my csd files in
>> >> Max/MSP/csound~
>> >> and build a real interface.
>> >>
>> >> But I also know that there are cross platform considerations in picking
>> >> QuteCsound.
>> >>
>> >> Come on Steve, thare are so many tools out there for using csound.
>> >> Switching
>> >> to Supercollider just becuase csound gui is not there is like throwing
>> >> the
>> >> baby
>> >> out with the bath water.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Anthony
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Peiman Khosravi
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hello,
>> >>>
>> >>> Why not run csound from the terminal (DOS)? It is almost as easy to
>> >>> use
>> >>> as
>> >>> csoundGui, which was never fully functional anyway.
>> >>> As for you other problems maybe you should send a bug report on the
>> >>> mailing
>> >>> list with your CSDs attached? It may be a simple problem and easily
>> >>> solvable.
>> >>>
>> >>> It is a good idea to try out supercollider anyway. It is a very
>> >>> powerful
>> >>> program but not a replacement for csound. They are good for different
>> >>> applications. I don't see why you should try and move to supercollider
>> >>> just
>> >>> because csoundgui is no longer released, particularly as it s now
>> >>> replaced
>> >>> with much more powerful interface. It doesn't make sense that
>> >>> QuteCsound
>> >>> deleted your CSDs, can you perhaps send a bug report to the QuteCsound
>> >>> list?
>> >>>
>> >>> Best
>> >>> Peiman
>> >>>
>> >>> On 14 Oct 2009, at 19:00, Steve Bradley wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear Csound list,
>> >>>
>> >>> I have been an avid user of Csound for a long time now but I must say
>> >>> that
>> >>> I am disappointed in this latest release for the following reasons:
>> >>>
>> >>> First, there appears to be no more Csound gui which I used on a
>> >>> regular
>> >>> basis to test and render csd files. The default appears to be
>> >>> QuteCsound
>> >>> which in my opinion is lacking for several reasons:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> - It crashes all the time on me. I am using Windows XP by the way.
>> >>> - I tried rendering a couple of csd files and it gave me a file much
>> >>> longer than what the file was supposed to be or it did not render at
>> >>> all.
>> >>> - On the last release of Csound, I had used QuteCsound a little but I
>> >>> had my files disappear or become erased by the application, therefore
>> >>> the
>> >>> Csound gui was my primary interface which is gone now.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> This is my main gripe with Csound 5.11. I don`t feel that it is fair
>> >>> that
>> >>> the Csound gui which has been around for years has been taken away
>> >>> from
>> >>> us
>> >>> users, only to have an application that has promise but is not ready
>> >>> yet
>> >>> for
>> >>> steady usage forced upon everyone for the sake of making beginners
>> >>> more
>> >>> comfortable.
>> >>>
>> >>> My next observation is concerning Luajit. What is that? There is no
>> >>> documentation that I can find to run that with Csound and the tutorial
>> >>> is
>> >>> python only. I have never seen many postings discussing Lua and its
>> >>> usage
>> >>> in
>> >>> regards to Csound so why is it suddenly a prominent part of the
>> >>> installation
>> >>> especially with no manual or anything else to help get started in that
>> >>> direction if it is wished to do so.
>> >>>
>> >>> Finally, I saw mention of a Doppler opcode to be added and that is in
>> >>> the
>> >>> release notes as well but there is nothing to found about that in the
>> >>> manual
>> >>> or program. What is the point of mentioning an opcode when it does not
>> >>> exist
>> >>> yet?
>> >>>
>> >>> Since there appears to be no Csound gui anymore and no easy way to
>> >>> render
>> >>> files, I have two choices left. Either abandon Csound for
>> >>> Supercollider
>> >>> completely or just install the old version and watch it become
>> >>> antiquated
>> >>> very quickly. I know that a lot of work went into this release as does
>> >>> every
>> >>> release, but I feel that there was too much done and discarded in a
>> >>> belief
>> >>> that Csound was broken or not user-friendly enough.
>> >>>
>> >>> Sincerely,
>> >>>
>> >>> Steve B.
>> >>>
>> >>> ------------------------------
>> >>> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign
>> >>> up
>> >>> now. 
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> >> 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 this list.
>> > To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> > csound"
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
>> > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
>> > Send bugs reports to this list.
>> > To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> > csound"
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Csound-5.11-Disappointment-tp25896063p25907257.html
>> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>
> ________________________________
> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.



-- 


Andrés


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

What exactly do you mean by an interpreter?

If you mean the ability to edit both compositions and scores in a
single editor, press a key to compile and immediately hear the
rendering, we already have that in various forms, indeed the Luajit
that was being asked about is one form of this if you use it with an
editor that knows that it is. And people have made all kinds of
environments for this.

If you mean the ability to have a command line open in a running
instance of Csound, that's something else, but I think that is
probably what you mean, isn't it? That would be something like Ge
Wang's system ChucK.

Regards,
Mike

On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
> while I get the live coding thing, I am not too sure about SC3 using
> less
> CPU than Csound. I have not seen any measurements of one against the
> other and would doubt very much that similar synthesis algorithms run
> faster
> on SC3.
>
> And, if you excuse me my opinion, the OOP in SC is a mess, it
> complicates things
> more than it helps (three hundred ways of doing things). It is the
> inverse of simplicity
> and elegance (that you see for instance in another OOP language like
> Python).
>
> Because it tries to do too much in one (algorithmic stuff and
> synthesis) it can get unwieldy.
> IMHO while there might be advantages to that approach, it is better to
> have a signal-processing
> language  as a separate entity
>
> For instance, one of the things I like about Csound is that when you
> have an audio
> variable, it is an audio signal you are dealing with, not a reference
> to some object
> running on a server.
>
> What I like in SC3 is the existence of an interpreter, which I hope in
> the future we
> might have in Csound.
>
>
> Victor
>
> On 15 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is superior to
>>> Csound.
>>
>> I didn't mean to sound annoyed (or annoying!), I understand your
>> frustration. But believe me it is no where near the frustration I
>> feel towards digidesign right now, particularly as they tell me that
>> my free support period is over and I have to start paying £1 per min
>> to get help on the phone :-0 duhhh, I'm moving to Ardour...
>>
>> Well I think Supercollider IS superior (shoot me dead) to Csound in
>> so many respects: e.g. live coding, low CPU, algorithmic stuff,
>> coding efficiency due to the object-orientated language and easier
>> source code to manage and build on OSX as it is build for Mac (no
>> use for you as you're on windows). But Csound certainly makes up for
>> it in other areas at which Supercollider is perhaps not so good. I
>> know I would never use SC3 extensively as I don't need all the
>> things mentioned above.
>>
>> In reply to Victor about being limited to one interface with SC3:
>>
>> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Systems_interfacing_with_SC
>>
>> Good luck with fixing things!
>> Peiman
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> 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 this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I mean an interpreter:  supplying an instrument interactively, loading  
it, playing it,
unloading, loading a different one etc.
We currently can have 'interpreted scores', ie.  RT events, but I would
like to see this extended to instruments.

Victor


On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:50, Michael Gogins wrote:

> What exactly do you mean by an interpreter?
>
> If you mean the ability to edit both compositions and scores in a
> single editor, press a key to compile and immediately hear the
> rendering, we already have that in various forms, indeed the Luajit
> that was being asked about is one form of this if you use it with an
> editor that knows that it is. And people have made all kinds of
> environments for this.
>
> If you mean the ability to have a command line open in a running
> instance of Csound, that's something else, but I think that is
> probably what you mean, isn't it? That would be something like Ge
> Wang's system ChucK.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>> while I get the live coding thing, I am not too sure about SC3 using
>> less
>> CPU than Csound. I have not seen any measurements of one against the
>> other and would doubt very much that similar synthesis algorithms run
>> faster
>> on SC3.
>>
>> And, if you excuse me my opinion, the OOP in SC is a mess, it
>> complicates things
>> more than it helps (three hundred ways of doing things). It is the
>> inverse of simplicity
>> and elegance (that you see for instance in another OOP language like
>> Python).
>>
>> Because it tries to do too much in one (algorithmic stuff and
>> synthesis) it can get unwieldy.
>> IMHO while there might be advantages to that approach, it is better  
>> to
>> have a signal-processing
>> language  as a separate entity
>>
>> For instance, one of the things I like about Csound is that when you
>> have an audio
>> variable, it is an audio signal you are dealing with, not a reference
>> to some object
>> running on a server.
>>
>> What I like in SC3 is the existence of an interpreter, which I hope  
>> in
>> the future we
>> might have in Csound.
>>
>>
>> Victor
>>
>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is superior to
>>>> Csound.
>>>
>>> I didn't mean to sound annoyed (or annoying!), I understand your
>>> frustration. But believe me it is no where near the frustration I
>>> feel towards digidesign right now, particularly as they tell me that
>>> my free support period is over and I have to start paying £1 per min
>>> to get help on the phone :-0 duhhh, I'm moving to Ardour...
>>>
>>> Well I think Supercollider IS superior (shoot me dead) to Csound in
>>> so many respects: e.g. live coding, low CPU, algorithmic stuff,
>>> coding efficiency due to the object-orientated language and easier
>>> source code to manage and build on OSX as it is build for Mac (no
>>> use for you as you're on windows). But Csound certainly makes up for
>>> it in other areas at which Supercollider is perhaps not so good. I
>>> know I would never use SC3 extensively as I don't need all the
>>> things mentioned above.
>>>
>>> In reply to Victor about being limited to one interface with SC3:
>>>
>>> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Systems_interfacing_with_SC
>>>
>>> Good luck with fixing things!
>>> Peiman
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> 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 this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
> "unsubscribe csound"



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 15:28 +0100, Andres Cabrera wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 
> This community tends to be not extremely sensitive and SuperCollider
> is not taboo aorund here =).  The replies have not been in the spirit
> to tell you you are wrong, but rather what we would do in your
> position.
> I'm very interested in troubleshooting the problems on Windows.
> Unfortunately I can't test it, since I don't have a Windows machine
> for development available, but I'm very interested in sorting this and
> the crashes on OS X.
> 
> Right now, what I've found is that if a csd is stopped before it
> finishes there is no problem and it can be run again, but if certain
> csds (not all-but not sure where the problem lies) run until the score
> finishes, Csound is not cleaned up properly, so running again causes a
> crash. This behavior seems not to have been there before, but I can't
> find anything that has changed in that respect from last version. I
> don't blame Csound itself, because I'm pretty sure the problem lies
> with QuteCsound...

If you are sure some older version did not have this behaviour, you can
do a bisection looking for it (assuming you have a problem-generating
csd).


-- 
Saludos,
Felipe Sateler

This would be certainly nice to have.  I've been going through the
Music V manual that's in the back of The Technology of Computer Music.
 I was surprised to learn that one could specify "the time at which
instrument n is to be defined."  That's one feature that didn't make
into Csound.

Best,
Jake


On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Victor Lazzarini
 wrote:
> I mean an interpreter:  supplying an instrument interactively, loading it,
> playing it,
> unloading, loading a different one etc.
> We currently can have 'interpreted scores', ie.  RT events, but I would
> like to see this extended to instruments.
>
> Victor
>
>
> On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:50, Michael Gogins wrote:
>
>> What exactly do you mean by an interpreter?
>>
>> If you mean the ability to edit both compositions and scores in a
>> single editor, press a key to compile and immediately hear the
>> rendering, we already have that in various forms, indeed the Luajit
>> that was being asked about is one form of this if you use it with an
>> editor that knows that it is. And people have made all kinds of
>> environments for this.
>>
>> If you mean the ability to have a command line open in a running
>> instance of Csound, that's something else, but I think that is
>> probably what you mean, isn't it? That would be something like Ge
>> Wang's system ChucK.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>>>
>>> while I get the live coding thing, I am not too sure about SC3 using
>>> less
>>> CPU than Csound. I have not seen any measurements of one against the
>>> other and would doubt very much that similar synthesis algorithms run
>>> faster
>>> on SC3.
>>>
>>> And, if you excuse me my opinion, the OOP in SC is a mess, it
>>> complicates things
>>> more than it helps (three hundred ways of doing things). It is the
>>> inverse of simplicity
>>> and elegance (that you see for instance in another OOP language like
>>> Python).
>>>
>>> Because it tries to do too much in one (algorithmic stuff and
>>> synthesis) it can get unwieldy.
>>> IMHO while there might be advantages to that approach, it is better to
>>> have a signal-processing
>>> language  as a separate entity
>>>
>>> For instance, one of the things I like about Csound is that when you
>>> have an audio
>>> variable, it is an audio signal you are dealing with, not a reference
>>> to some object
>>> running on a server.
>>>
>>> What I like in SC3 is the existence of an interpreter, which I hope in
>>> the future we
>>> might have in Csound.
>>>
>>>
>>> Victor
>>>
>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is superior to
>>>>> Csound.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't mean to sound annoyed (or annoying!), I understand your
>>>> frustration. But believe me it is no where near the frustration I
>>>> feel towards digidesign right now, particularly as they tell me that
>>>> my free support period is over and I have to start paying £1 per min
>>>> to get help on the phone :-0 duhhh, I'm moving to Ardour...
>>>>
>>>> Well I think Supercollider IS superior (shoot me dead) to Csound in
>>>> so many respects: e.g. live coding, low CPU, algorithmic stuff,
>>>> coding efficiency due to the object-orientated language and easier
>>>> source code to manage and build on OSX as it is build for Mac (no
>>>> use for you as you're on windows). But Csound certainly makes up for
>>>> it in other areas at which Supercollider is perhaps not so good. I
>>>> know I would never use SC3 extensively as I don't need all the
>>>> things mentioned above.
>>>>
>>>> In reply to Victor about being limited to one interface with SC3:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Systems_interfacing_with_SC
>>>>
>>>> Good luck with fixing things!
>>>> Peiman
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>> 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 this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

But remember that Csound didn't come from Music V, but
Music IV (through Music360 and 11).

Victor
On 15 Oct 2009, at 17:00, Jacob Joaquin wrote:

> This would be certainly nice to have.  I've been going through the
> Music V manual that's in the back of The Technology of Computer Music.
> I was surprised to learn that one could specify "the time at which
> instrument n is to be defined."  That's one feature that didn't make
> into Csound.
>
> Best,
> Jake
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Victor Lazzarini
>  wrote:
>> I mean an interpreter:  supplying an instrument interactively,  
>> loading it,
>> playing it,
>> unloading, loading a different one etc.
>> We currently can have 'interpreted scores', ie.  RT events, but I  
>> would
>> like to see this extended to instruments.
>>
>> Victor
>>
>>
>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:50, Michael Gogins wrote:
>>
>>> What exactly do you mean by an interpreter?
>>>
>>> If you mean the ability to edit both compositions and scores in a
>>> single editor, press a key to compile and immediately hear the
>>> rendering, we already have that in various forms, indeed the Luajit
>>> that was being asked about is one form of this if you use it with an
>>> editor that knows that it is. And people have made all kinds of
>>> environments for this.
>>>
>>> If you mean the ability to have a command line open in a running
>>> instance of Csound, that's something else, but I think that is
>>> probably what you mean, isn't it? That would be something like Ge
>>> Wang's system ChucK.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> while I get the live coding thing, I am not too sure about SC3  
>>>> using
>>>> less
>>>> CPU than Csound. I have not seen any measurements of one against  
>>>> the
>>>> other and would doubt very much that similar synthesis algorithms  
>>>> run
>>>> faster
>>>> on SC3.
>>>>
>>>> And, if you excuse me my opinion, the OOP in SC is a mess, it
>>>> complicates things
>>>> more than it helps (three hundred ways of doing things). It is the
>>>> inverse of simplicity
>>>> and elegance (that you see for instance in another OOP language  
>>>> like
>>>> Python).
>>>>
>>>> Because it tries to do too much in one (algorithmic stuff and
>>>> synthesis) it can get unwieldy.
>>>> IMHO while there might be advantages to that approach, it is  
>>>> better to
>>>> have a signal-processing
>>>> language  as a separate entity
>>>>
>>>> For instance, one of the things I like about Csound is that when  
>>>> you
>>>> have an audio
>>>> variable, it is an audio signal you are dealing with, not a  
>>>> reference
>>>> to some object
>>>> running on a server.
>>>>
>>>> What I like in SC3 is the existence of an interpreter, which I  
>>>> hope in
>>>> the future we
>>>> might have in Csound.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Victor
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is  
>>>>>> superior to
>>>>>> Csound.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't mean to sound annoyed (or annoying!), I understand your
>>>>> frustration. But believe me it is no where near the frustration I
>>>>> feel towards digidesign right now, particularly as they tell me  
>>>>> that
>>>>> my free support period is over and I have to start paying £1 per  
>>>>> min
>>>>> to get help on the phone :-0 duhhh, I'm moving to Ardour...
>>>>>
>>>>> Well I think Supercollider IS superior (shoot me dead) to Csound  
>>>>> in
>>>>> so many respects: e.g. live coding, low CPU, algorithmic stuff,
>>>>> coding efficiency due to the object-orientated language and easier
>>>>> source code to manage and build on OSX as it is build for Mac (no
>>>>> use for you as you're on windows). But Csound certainly makes up  
>>>>> for
>>>>> it in other areas at which Supercollider is perhaps not so good. I
>>>>> know I would never use SC3 extensively as I don't need all the
>>>>> things mentioned above.
>>>>>
>>>>> In reply to Victor about being limited to one interface with SC3:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Systems_interfacing_with_SC
>>>>>
>>>>> Good luck with fixing things!
>>>>> Peiman
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>> 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 this list.
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>>> "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>> "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
> "unsubscribe csound"



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I almost made that point, but it didn't make the cut.  :)


On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Victor Lazzarini
 wrote:
> But remember that Csound didn't come from Music V, but
> Music IV (through Music360 and 11).
>
> Victor
> On 15 Oct 2009, at 17:00, Jacob Joaquin wrote:
>
>> This would be certainly nice to have.  I've been going through the
>> Music V manual that's in the back of The Technology of Computer Music.
>> I was surprised to learn that one could specify "the time at which
>> instrument n is to be defined."  That's one feature that didn't make
>> into Csound.
>>
>> Best,
>> Jake
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Victor Lazzarini
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I mean an interpreter:  supplying an instrument interactively, loading
>>> it,
>>> playing it,
>>> unloading, loading a different one etc.
>>> We currently can have 'interpreted scores', ie.  RT events, but I would
>>> like to see this extended to instruments.
>>>
>>> Victor
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:50, Michael Gogins wrote:
>>>
>>>> What exactly do you mean by an interpreter?
>>>>
>>>> If you mean the ability to edit both compositions and scores in a
>>>> single editor, press a key to compile and immediately hear the
>>>> rendering, we already have that in various forms, indeed the Luajit
>>>> that was being asked about is one form of this if you use it with an
>>>> editor that knows that it is. And people have made all kinds of
>>>> environments for this.
>>>>
>>>> If you mean the ability to have a command line open in a running
>>>> instance of Csound, that's something else, but I think that is
>>>> probably what you mean, isn't it? That would be something like Ge
>>>> Wang's system ChucK.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> while I get the live coding thing, I am not too sure about SC3 using
>>>>> less
>>>>> CPU than Csound. I have not seen any measurements of one against the
>>>>> other and would doubt very much that similar synthesis algorithms run
>>>>> faster
>>>>> on SC3.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, if you excuse me my opinion, the OOP in SC is a mess, it
>>>>> complicates things
>>>>> more than it helps (three hundred ways of doing things). It is the
>>>>> inverse of simplicity
>>>>> and elegance (that you see for instance in another OOP language like
>>>>> Python).
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it tries to do too much in one (algorithmic stuff and
>>>>> synthesis) it can get unwieldy.
>>>>> IMHO while there might be advantages to that approach, it is better to
>>>>> have a signal-processing
>>>>> language  as a separate entity
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, one of the things I like about Csound is that when you
>>>>> have an audio
>>>>> variable, it is an audio signal you are dealing with, not a reference
>>>>> to some object
>>>>> running on a server.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I like in SC3 is the existence of an interpreter, which I hope in
>>>>> the future we
>>>>> might have in Csound.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Victor
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is superior to
>>>>>>> Csound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't mean to sound annoyed (or annoying!), I understand your
>>>>>> frustration. But believe me it is no where near the frustration I
>>>>>> feel towards digidesign right now, particularly as they tell me that
>>>>>> my free support period is over and I have to start paying £1 per min
>>>>>> to get help on the phone :-0 duhhh, I'm moving to Ardour...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well I think Supercollider IS superior (shoot me dead) to Csound in
>>>>>> so many respects: e.g. live coding, low CPU, algorithmic stuff,
>>>>>> coding efficiency due to the object-orientated language and easier
>>>>>> source code to manage and build on OSX as it is build for Mac (no
>>>>>> use for you as you're on windows). But Csound certainly makes up for
>>>>>> it in other areas at which Supercollider is perhaps not so good. I
>>>>>> know I would never use SC3 extensively as I don't need all the
>>>>>> things mentioned above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In reply to Victor about being limited to one interface with SC3:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Systems_interfacing_with_SC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good luck with fixing things!
>>>>>> Peiman
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>>> 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 this list.
>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>> csound"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

So that would be like ChucK. It enables you to define instruments on
the fly and plug them into a running synthesizer. Have you played with
it? I've seen a number of demos, and played with just the tiniest bit.

ChucK was created as a real computer language using YACC and LEX as
was SuperCollider, but it runs at 1 sample frame per "tick" of the
signal processing graph (ksmps=1 all the time), and its opcodes are
based mostly on the Synthesis Tookit in C++.

Regards,
Mike

On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
> I mean an interpreter:  supplying an instrument interactively, loading
> it, playing it,
> unloading, loading a different one etc.
> We currently can have 'interpreted scores', ie.  RT events, but I would
> like to see this extended to instruments.
>
> Victor
>
>
> On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:50, Michael Gogins wrote:
>
>> What exactly do you mean by an interpreter?
>>
>> If you mean the ability to edit both compositions and scores in a
>> single editor, press a key to compile and immediately hear the
>> rendering, we already have that in various forms, indeed the Luajit
>> that was being asked about is one form of this if you use it with an
>> editor that knows that it is. And people have made all kinds of
>> environments for this.
>>
>> If you mean the ability to have a command line open in a running
>> instance of Csound, that's something else, but I think that is
>> probably what you mean, isn't it? That would be something like Ge
>> Wang's system ChucK.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>>> while I get the live coding thing, I am not too sure about SC3 using
>>> less
>>> CPU than Csound. I have not seen any measurements of one against the
>>> other and would doubt very much that similar synthesis algorithms run
>>> faster
>>> on SC3.
>>>
>>> And, if you excuse me my opinion, the OOP in SC is a mess, it
>>> complicates things
>>> more than it helps (three hundred ways of doing things). It is the
>>> inverse of simplicity
>>> and elegance (that you see for instance in another OOP language like
>>> Python).
>>>
>>> Because it tries to do too much in one (algorithmic stuff and
>>> synthesis) it can get unwieldy.
>>> IMHO while there might be advantages to that approach, it is better
>>> to
>>> have a signal-processing
>>> language  as a separate entity
>>>
>>> For instance, one of the things I like about Csound is that when you
>>> have an audio
>>> variable, it is an audio signal you are dealing with, not a reference
>>> to some object
>>> running on a server.
>>>
>>> What I like in SC3 is the existence of an interpreter, which I hope
>>> in
>>> the future we
>>> might have in Csound.
>>>
>>>
>>> Victor
>>>
>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is superior to
>>>>> Csound.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't mean to sound annoyed (or annoying!), I understand your
>>>> frustration. But believe me it is no where near the frustration I
>>>> feel towards digidesign right now, particularly as they tell me that
>>>> my free support period is over and I have to start paying £1 per min
>>>> to get help on the phone :-0 duhhh, I'm moving to Ardour...
>>>>
>>>> Well I think Supercollider IS superior (shoot me dead) to Csound in
>>>> so many respects: e.g. live coding, low CPU, algorithmic stuff,
>>>> coding efficiency due to the object-orientated language and easier
>>>> source code to manage and build on OSX as it is build for Mac (no
>>>> use for you as you're on windows). But Csound certainly makes up for
>>>> it in other areas at which Supercollider is perhaps not so good. I
>>>> know I would never use SC3 extensively as I don't need all the
>>>> things mentioned above.
>>>>
>>>> In reply to Victor about being limited to one interface with SC3:
>>>>
>>>> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Systems_interfacing_with_SC
>>>>
>>>> Good luck with fixing things!
>>>> Peiman
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>> 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 this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>> "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> 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 this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Csound also uses Yacc and Lex (well Bison and Flex) in the new
parser. I consider it a real programming language. It is turing complete
AFAIK (or is it not?).

Victor
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Gogins" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:59 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Csound 5.11 
Disappointment


So that would be like ChucK. It enables you to define instruments on
the fly and plug them into a running synthesizer. Have you played with
it? I've seen a number of demos, and played with just the tiniest bit.

ChucK was created as a real computer language using YACC and LEX as
was SuperCollider, but it runs at 1 sample frame per "tick" of the
signal processing graph (ksmps=1 all the time), and its opcodes are
based mostly on the Synthesis Tookit in C++.

Regards,
Mike

On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
> I mean an interpreter:  supplying an instrument interactively, loading
> it, playing it,
> unloading, loading a different one etc.
> We currently can have 'interpreted scores', ie.  RT events, but I would
> like to see this extended to instruments.
>
> Victor
>
>
> On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:50, Michael Gogins wrote:
>
>> What exactly do you mean by an interpreter?
>>
>> If you mean the ability to edit both compositions and scores in a
>> single editor, press a key to compile and immediately hear the
>> rendering, we already have that in various forms, indeed the Luajit
>> that was being asked about is one form of this if you use it with an
>> editor that knows that it is. And people have made all kinds of
>> environments for this.
>>
>> If you mean the ability to have a command line open in a running
>> instance of Csound, that's something else, but I think that is
>> probably what you mean, isn't it? That would be something like Ge
>> Wang's system ChucK.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>>> while I get the live coding thing, I am not too sure about SC3 using
>>> less
>>> CPU than Csound. I have not seen any measurements of one against the
>>> other and would doubt very much that similar synthesis algorithms run
>>> faster
>>> on SC3.
>>>
>>> And, if you excuse me my opinion, the OOP in SC is a mess, it
>>> complicates things
>>> more than it helps (three hundred ways of doing things). It is the
>>> inverse of simplicity
>>> and elegance (that you see for instance in another OOP language like
>>> Python).
>>>
>>> Because it tries to do too much in one (algorithmic stuff and
>>> synthesis) it can get unwieldy.
>>> IMHO while there might be advantages to that approach, it is better
>>> to
>>> have a signal-processing
>>> language  as a separate entity
>>>
>>> For instance, one of the things I like about Csound is that when you
>>> have an audio
>>> variable, it is an audio signal you are dealing with, not a reference
>>> to some object
>>> running on a server.
>>>
>>> What I like in SC3 is the existence of an interpreter, which I hope
>>> in
>>> the future we
>>> might have in Csound.
>>>
>>>
>>> Victor
>>>
>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is superior to
>>>>> Csound.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't mean to sound annoyed (or annoying!), I understand your
>>>> frustration. But believe me it is no where near the frustration I
>>>> feel towards digidesign right now, particularly as they tell me that
>>>> my free support period is over and I have to start paying £1 per min
>>>> to get help on the phone :-0 duhhh, I'm moving to Ardour...
>>>>
>>>> Well I think Supercollider IS superior (shoot me dead) to Csound in
>>>> so many respects: e.g. live coding, low CPU, algorithmic stuff,
>>>> coding efficiency due to the object-orientated language and easier
>>>> source code to manage and build on OSX as it is build for Mac (no
>>>> use for you as you're on windows). But Csound certainly makes up for
>>>> it in other areas at which Supercollider is perhaps not so good. I
>>>> know I would never use SC3 extensively as I don't need all the
>>>> things mentioned above.
>>>>
>>>> In reply to Victor about being limited to one interface with SC3:
>>>>
>>>> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Systems_interfacing_with_SC
>>>>
>>>> Good luck with fixing things!
>>>> Peiman
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>> 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 this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>> "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"

Sorry if this is getting a little off topic... but since people are
mentioning ChucK... there's an interesting approach to on-the-fly
audio DSP in the new 'Impromptu'. Basically a custom AudioUnit is
provided, in which you can compile scheme code and then hot-swap the
compiled code into the AudioUnit while its running. I don't know if a
similar idea is at all possible in Csound... maybe compile an
instrument and hot-swap it into a running orchestra?

Thorin



On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Michael Gogins
 wrote:
> So that would be like ChucK. It enables you to define instruments on
> the fly and plug them into a running synthesizer. Have you played with
> it? I've seen a number of demos, and played with just the tiniest bit.
>
> ChucK was created as a real computer language using YACC and LEX as
> was SuperCollider, but it runs at 1 sample frame per "tick" of the
> signal processing graph (ksmps=1 all the time), and its opcodes are
> based mostly on the Synthesis Tookit in C++.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>> I mean an interpreter:  supplying an instrument interactively, loading
>> it, playing it,
>> unloading, loading a different one etc.
>> We currently can have 'interpreted scores', ie.  RT events, but I would
>> like to see this extended to instruments.
>>
>> Victor
>>
>>
>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:50, Michael Gogins wrote:
>>
>>> What exactly do you mean by an interpreter?
>>>
>>> If you mean the ability to edit both compositions and scores in a
>>> single editor, press a key to compile and immediately hear the
>>> rendering, we already have that in various forms, indeed the Luajit
>>> that was being asked about is one form of this if you use it with an
>>> editor that knows that it is. And people have made all kinds of
>>> environments for this.
>>>
>>> If you mean the ability to have a command line open in a running
>>> instance of Csound, that's something else, but I think that is
>>> probably what you mean, isn't it? That would be something like Ge
>>> Wang's system ChucK.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>>>> while I get the live coding thing, I am not too sure about SC3 using
>>>> less
>>>> CPU than Csound. I have not seen any measurements of one against the
>>>> other and would doubt very much that similar synthesis algorithms run
>>>> faster
>>>> on SC3.
>>>>
>>>> And, if you excuse me my opinion, the OOP in SC is a mess, it
>>>> complicates things
>>>> more than it helps (three hundred ways of doing things). It is the
>>>> inverse of simplicity
>>>> and elegance (that you see for instance in another OOP language like
>>>> Python).
>>>>
>>>> Because it tries to do too much in one (algorithmic stuff and
>>>> synthesis) it can get unwieldy.
>>>> IMHO while there might be advantages to that approach, it is better
>>>> to
>>>> have a signal-processing
>>>> language  as a separate entity
>>>>
>>>> For instance, one of the things I like about Csound is that when you
>>>> have an audio
>>>> variable, it is an audio signal you are dealing with, not a reference
>>>> to some object
>>>> running on a server.
>>>>
>>>> What I like in SC3 is the existence of an interpreter, which I hope
>>>> in
>>>> the future we
>>>> might have in Csound.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Victor
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is superior to
>>>>>> Csound.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't mean to sound annoyed (or annoying!), I understand your
>>>>> frustration. But believe me it is no where near the frustration I
>>>>> feel towards digidesign right now, particularly as they tell me that
>>>>> my free support period is over and I have to start paying £1 per min
>>>>> to get help on the phone :-0 duhhh, I'm moving to Ardour...
>>>>>
>>>>> Well I think Supercollider IS superior (shoot me dead) to Csound in
>>>>> so many respects: e.g. live coding, low CPU, algorithmic stuff,
>>>>> coding efficiency due to the object-orientated language and easier
>>>>> source code to manage and build on OSX as it is build for Mac (no
>>>>> use for you as you're on windows). But Csound certainly makes up for
>>>>> it in other areas at which Supercollider is perhaps not so good. I
>>>>> know I would never use SC3 extensively as I don't need all the
>>>>> things mentioned above.
>>>>>
>>>>> In reply to Victor about being limited to one interface with SC3:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Systems_interfacing_with_SC
>>>>>
>>>>> Good luck with fixing things!
>>>>> Peiman
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>> 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 this list.
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> 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 this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Csound was always Turing complete. To be Turing complete all you need
is logical calculus, branch on comparison, and repeat. in Csound
that's the logical operators, if with goto, and sequence of
statements.

It's hard to make a real computer language that is NOT Turing
complete. For example, when Sun built the DTrace debugging language
into the Solaris kernel, and they tried to make it non Turing complete
so it wouldn't allow hackers to take over computers. However, I was
fairly easily able to come up with a hack to make it Turing complete.
I found a way to define variables that would carry over from the scope
of one logical operation into the scope of another logical operation,
to enable branch on comparison.

Regards,
Mike

On 10/15/09, victor  wrote:
> Csound also uses Yacc and Lex (well Bison and Flex) in the new
> parser. I consider it a real programming language. It is turing complete
> AFAIK (or is it not?).
>
> Victor
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Gogins" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:59 PM
> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Csound 5.11
> Disappointment
>
>
> So that would be like ChucK. It enables you to define instruments on
> the fly and plug them into a running synthesizer. Have you played with
> it? I've seen a number of demos, and played with just the tiniest bit.
>
> ChucK was created as a real computer language using YACC and LEX as
> was SuperCollider, but it runs at 1 sample frame per "tick" of the
> signal processing graph (ksmps=1 all the time), and its opcodes are
> based mostly on the Synthesis Tookit in C++.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>> I mean an interpreter:  supplying an instrument interactively, loading
>> it, playing it,
>> unloading, loading a different one etc.
>> We currently can have 'interpreted scores', ie.  RT events, but I would
>> like to see this extended to instruments.
>>
>> Victor
>>
>>
>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:50, Michael Gogins wrote:
>>
>>> What exactly do you mean by an interpreter?
>>>
>>> If you mean the ability to edit both compositions and scores in a
>>> single editor, press a key to compile and immediately hear the
>>> rendering, we already have that in various forms, indeed the Luajit
>>> that was being asked about is one form of this if you use it with an
>>> editor that knows that it is. And people have made all kinds of
>>> environments for this.
>>>
>>> If you mean the ability to have a command line open in a running
>>> instance of Csound, that's something else, but I think that is
>>> probably what you mean, isn't it? That would be something like Ge
>>> Wang's system ChucK.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>>>> while I get the live coding thing, I am not too sure about SC3 using
>>>> less
>>>> CPU than Csound. I have not seen any measurements of one against the
>>>> other and would doubt very much that similar synthesis algorithms run
>>>> faster
>>>> on SC3.
>>>>
>>>> And, if you excuse me my opinion, the OOP in SC is a mess, it
>>>> complicates things
>>>> more than it helps (three hundred ways of doing things). It is the
>>>> inverse of simplicity
>>>> and elegance (that you see for instance in another OOP language like
>>>> Python).
>>>>
>>>> Because it tries to do too much in one (algorithmic stuff and
>>>> synthesis) it can get unwieldy.
>>>> IMHO while there might be advantages to that approach, it is better
>>>> to
>>>> have a signal-processing
>>>> language  as a separate entity
>>>>
>>>> For instance, one of the things I like about Csound is that when you
>>>> have an audio
>>>> variable, it is an audio signal you are dealing with, not a reference
>>>> to some object
>>>> running on a server.
>>>>
>>>> What I like in SC3 is the existence of an interpreter, which I hope
>>>> in
>>>> the future we
>>>> might have in Csound.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Victor
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is superior to
>>>>>> Csound.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't mean to sound annoyed (or annoying!), I understand your
>>>>> frustration. But believe me it is no where near the frustration I
>>>>> feel towards digidesign right now, particularly as they tell me that
>>>>> my free support period is over and I have to start paying £1 per min
>>>>> to get help on the phone :-0 duhhh, I'm moving to Ardour...
>>>>>
>>>>> Well I think Supercollider IS superior (shoot me dead) to Csound in
>>>>> so many respects: e.g. live coding, low CPU, algorithmic stuff,
>>>>> coding efficiency due to the object-orientated language and easier
>>>>> source code to manage and build on OSX as it is build for Mac (no
>>>>> use for you as you're on windows). But Csound certainly makes up for
>>>>> it in other areas at which Supercollider is perhaps not so good. I
>>>>> know I would never use SC3 extensively as I don't need all the
>>>>> things mentioned above.
>>>>>
>>>>> In reply to Victor about being limited to one interface with SC3:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Systems_interfacing_with_SC
>>>>>
>>>>> Good luck with fixing things!
>>>>> Peiman
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>> 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 this list.
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> 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 this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"=
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> 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 this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

You can have a whole orchestra with different instruments and run
them on-the-fly, but you can't at the moment, load in instruments or
UDOs. I hope we'll achieve this in the future.

Victor


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "thorin kerr" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 6:44 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Csound 5.11 
Disappointment


Sorry if this is getting a little off topic... but since people are
mentioning ChucK... there's an interesting approach to on-the-fly
audio DSP in the new 'Impromptu'. Basically a custom AudioUnit is
provided, in which you can compile scheme code and then hot-swap the
compiled code into the AudioUnit while its running. I don't know if a
similar idea is at all possible in Csound... maybe compile an
instrument and hot-swap it into a running orchestra?

Thorin



On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Michael Gogins
 wrote:
> So that would be like ChucK. It enables you to define instruments on
> the fly and plug them into a running synthesizer. Have you played with
> it? I've seen a number of demos, and played with just the tiniest bit.
>
> ChucK was created as a real computer language using YACC and LEX as
> was SuperCollider, but it runs at 1 sample frame per "tick" of the
> signal processing graph (ksmps=1 all the time), and its opcodes are
> based mostly on the Synthesis Tookit in C++.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>> I mean an interpreter: supplying an instrument interactively, loading
>> it, playing it,
>> unloading, loading a different one etc.
>> We currently can have 'interpreted scores', ie. RT events, but I would
>> like to see this extended to instruments.
>>
>> Victor
>>
>>
>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:50, Michael Gogins wrote:
>>
>>> What exactly do you mean by an interpreter?
>>>
>>> If you mean the ability to edit both compositions and scores in a
>>> single editor, press a key to compile and immediately hear the
>>> rendering, we already have that in various forms, indeed the Luajit
>>> that was being asked about is one form of this if you use it with an
>>> editor that knows that it is. And people have made all kinds of
>>> environments for this.
>>>
>>> If you mean the ability to have a command line open in a running
>>> instance of Csound, that's something else, but I think that is
>>> probably what you mean, isn't it? That would be something like Ge
>>> Wang's system ChucK.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>>>> while I get the live coding thing, I am not too sure about SC3 using
>>>> less
>>>> CPU than Csound. I have not seen any measurements of one against the
>>>> other and would doubt very much that similar synthesis algorithms run
>>>> faster
>>>> on SC3.
>>>>
>>>> And, if you excuse me my opinion, the OOP in SC is a mess, it
>>>> complicates things
>>>> more than it helps (three hundred ways of doing things). It is the
>>>> inverse of simplicity
>>>> and elegance (that you see for instance in another OOP language like
>>>> Python).
>>>>
>>>> Because it tries to do too much in one (algorithmic stuff and
>>>> synthesis) it can get unwieldy.
>>>> IMHO while there might be advantages to that approach, it is better
>>>> to
>>>> have a signal-processing
>>>> language as a separate entity
>>>>
>>>> For instance, one of the things I like about Csound is that when you
>>>> have an audio
>>>> variable, it is an audio signal you are dealing with, not a reference
>>>> to some object
>>>> running on a server.
>>>>
>>>> What I like in SC3 is the existence of an interpreter, which I hope
>>>> in
>>>> the future we
>>>> might have in Csound.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Victor
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is superior to
>>>>>> Csound.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't mean to sound annoyed (or annoying!), I understand your
>>>>> frustration. But believe me it is no where near the frustration I
>>>>> feel towards digidesign right now, particularly as they tell me that
>>>>> my free support period is over and I have to start paying £1 per min
>>>>> to get help on the phone :-0 duhhh, I'm moving to Ardour...
>>>>>
>>>>> Well I think Supercollider IS superior (shoot me dead) to Csound in
>>>>> so many respects: e.g. live coding, low CPU, algorithmic stuff,
>>>>> coding efficiency due to the object-orientated language and easier
>>>>> source code to manage and build on OSX as it is build for Mac (no
>>>>> use for you as you're on windows). But Csound certainly makes up for
>>>>> it in other areas at which Supercollider is perhaps not so good. I
>>>>> know I would never use SC3 extensively as I don't need all the
>>>>> things mentioned above.
>>>>>
>>>>> In reply to Victor about being limited to one interface with SC3:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Systems_interfacing_with_SC
>>>>>
>>>>> Good luck with fixing things!
>>>>> Peiman
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>> 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 this list.
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> 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 this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound"


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
csound"= 



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Maybe I don't understand what live coding is, but I thought it was
fairly easy with Csound. In the past I've used it with Pd to even
live-switch Csound orchestras. Live coding isn't my main thing, so I'm
not picky, but there must be ways to do it well with Csound.
An interpreter for Csound would be a dream!

-Chuckk

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Victor Lazzarini
 wrote:
> while I get the live coding thing, I am not too sure about SC3 using less
> CPU than Csound. I have not seen any measurements of one against the
> other and would doubt very much that similar synthesis algorithms run faster
> on SC3.
> And, if you excuse me my opinion, the OOP in SC is a mess, it complicates
> things
> more than it helps (three hundred ways of doing things). It is the inverse
> of simplicity
> and elegance (that you see for instance in another OOP language like
> Python).
> Because it tries to do too much in one (algorithmic stuff and synthesis) it
> can get unwieldy.
> IMHO while there might be advantages to that approach, it is better to have
> a signal-processing
> language  as a separate entity
> For instance, one of the things I like about Csound is that when you have an
> audio
> variable, it is an audio signal you are dealing with, not a reference to
> some object
> running on a server.
> What I like in SC3 is the existence of an interpreter, which I hope in the
> future we
> might have in Csound.
>
> Victor
> On 15 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>
>
> I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is superior to Csound.
>
> I didn't mean to sound annoyed (or annoying!), I understand your
> frustration. But believe me it is no where near the frustration I feel
> towards digidesign right now, particularly as they tell me that my free
> support period is over and I have to start paying £1 per min to get help on
> the phone :-0 duhhh, I'm moving to Ardour...
> Well I think Supercollider IS superior (shoot me dead) to Csound in so many
> respects: e.g. live coding, low CPU, algorithmic stuff, coding efficiency
> due to the object-orientated language and easier source code to manage and
> build on OSX as it is build for Mac (no use for you as you're on windows).
> But Csound certainly makes up for it in other areas at which Supercollider
> is perhaps not so good. I know I would never use SC3 extensively as I don't
> need all the things mentioned above.
> In reply to Victor about being limited to one interface with SC3:
> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Systems_interfacing_with_SC
> Good luck with fixing things!
> Peiman
>
>



-- 
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I should have read the whole thread before replying. My "solution" was
to cross-fade between two instances using Pd, but that wouldn't work
for held notes. I guess in terms of programming, it would probably be
simpler and more to the point to make instruments loadable than to set
up a system to carry internal variable values to a new instance so it
continues running like the first one.

-Chuckk

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:47 PM, victor  wrote:
> You can have a whole orchestra with different instruments and run
> them on-the-fly, but you can't at the moment, load in instruments or
> UDOs. I hope we'll achieve this in the future.
>
> Victor
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "thorin kerr" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 6:44 PM
> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Csound 5.11
> Disappointment
>
>
> Sorry if this is getting a little off topic... but since people are
> mentioning ChucK... there's an interesting approach to on-the-fly
> audio DSP in the new 'Impromptu'. Basically a custom AudioUnit is
> provided, in which you can compile scheme code and then hot-swap the
> compiled code into the AudioUnit while its running. I don't know if a
> similar idea is at all possible in Csound... maybe compile an
> instrument and hot-swap it into a running orchestra?
>
> Thorin
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Michael Gogins
>  wrote:
>>
>> So that would be like ChucK. It enables you to define instruments on
>> the fly and plug them into a running synthesizer. Have you played with
>> it? I've seen a number of demos, and played with just the tiniest bit.
>>
>> ChucK was created as a real computer language using YACC and LEX as
>> was SuperCollider, but it runs at 1 sample frame per "tick" of the
>> signal processing graph (ksmps=1 all the time), and its opcodes are
>> based mostly on the Synthesis Tookit in C++.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>>>
>>> I mean an interpreter: supplying an instrument interactively, loading
>>> it, playing it,
>>> unloading, loading a different one etc.
>>> We currently can have 'interpreted scores', ie. RT events, but I would
>>> like to see this extended to instruments.
>>>
>>> Victor
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:50, Michael Gogins wrote:
>>>
>>>> What exactly do you mean by an interpreter?
>>>>
>>>> If you mean the ability to edit both compositions and scores in a
>>>> single editor, press a key to compile and immediately hear the
>>>> rendering, we already have that in various forms, indeed the Luajit
>>>> that was being asked about is one form of this if you use it with an
>>>> editor that knows that it is. And people have made all kinds of
>>>> environments for this.
>>>>
>>>> If you mean the ability to have a command line open in a running
>>>> instance of Csound, that's something else, but I think that is
>>>> probably what you mean, isn't it? That would be something like Ge
>>>> Wang's system ChucK.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> while I get the live coding thing, I am not too sure about SC3 using
>>>>> less
>>>>> CPU than Csound. I have not seen any measurements of one against the
>>>>> other and would doubt very much that similar synthesis algorithms run
>>>>> faster
>>>>> on SC3.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, if you excuse me my opinion, the OOP in SC is a mess, it
>>>>> complicates things
>>>>> more than it helps (three hundred ways of doing things). It is the
>>>>> inverse of simplicity
>>>>> and elegance (that you see for instance in another OOP language like
>>>>> Python).
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it tries to do too much in one (algorithmic stuff and
>>>>> synthesis) it can get unwieldy.
>>>>> IMHO while there might be advantages to that approach, it is better
>>>>> to
>>>>> have a signal-processing
>>>>> language as a separate entity
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, one of the things I like about Csound is that when you
>>>>> have an audio
>>>>> variable, it is an audio signal you are dealing with, not a reference
>>>>> to some object
>>>>> running on a server.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I like in SC3 is the existence of an interpreter, which I hope
>>>>> in
>>>>> the future we
>>>>> might have in Csound.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Victor
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is superior to
>>>>>>> Csound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't mean to sound annoyed (or annoying!), I understand your
>>>>>> frustration. But believe me it is no where near the frustration I
>>>>>> feel towards digidesign right now, particularly as they tell me that
>>>>>> my free support period is over and I have to start paying £1 per min
>>>>>> to get help on the phone :-0 duhhh, I'm moving to Ardour...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well I think Supercollider IS superior (shoot me dead) to Csound in
>>>>>> so many respects: e.g. live coding, low CPU, algorithmic stuff,
>>>>>> coding efficiency due to the object-orientated language and easier
>>>>>> source code to manage and build on OSX as it is build for Mac (no
>>>>>> use for you as you're on windows). But Csound certainly makes up for
>>>>>> it in other areas at which Supercollider is perhaps not so good. I
>>>>>> know I would never use SC3 extensively as I don't need all the
>>>>>> things mentioned above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In reply to Victor about being limited to one interface with SC3:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Systems_interfacing_with_SC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good luck with fixing things!
>>>>>> Peiman
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>>> 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 this list.
>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>> 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 this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"=
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>



-- 
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hi Mr. Stefan,

on sourceforge You can find also old release,

http://sourceforge.net/projects/csound/files/

under 5.10

ciao,
fran.


kontrapunktstefan wrote:
> 
> Dear community,
> I 've also experienced problems with csound 5.11.
> I tried to reinstall an older version for WinXP, but I don't know where to
> find it.
> Can You give me a hint?
> 
> 2009/10/17 Chuckk Hubbard 
> 
>> I should have read the whole thread before replying. My "solution" was
>> to cross-fade between two instances using Pd, but that wouldn't work
>> for held notes. I guess in terms of programming, it would probably be
>> simpler and more to the point to make instruments loadable than to set
>> up a system to carry internal variable values to a new instance so it
>> continues running like the first one.
>>
>> -Chuckk
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:47 PM, victor  wrote:
>> > You can have a whole orchestra with different instruments and run
>> > them on-the-fly, but you can't at the moment, load in instruments or
>> > UDOs. I hope we'll achieve this in the future.
>> >
>> > Victor
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "thorin kerr"
>> 
>> > To: 
>> > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 6:44 PM
>> > Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Csound 5.11
>> > Disappointment
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry if this is getting a little off topic... but since people are
>> > mentioning ChucK... there's an interesting approach to on-the-fly
>> > audio DSP in the new 'Impromptu'. Basically a custom AudioUnit is
>> > provided, in which you can compile scheme code and then hot-swap the
>> > compiled code into the AudioUnit while its running. I don't know if a
>> > similar idea is at all possible in Csound... maybe compile an
>> > instrument and hot-swap it into a running orchestra?
>> >
>> > Thorin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Michael Gogins
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So that would be like ChucK. It enables you to define instruments on
>> >> the fly and plug them into a running synthesizer. Have you played with
>> >> it? I've seen a number of demos, and played with just the tiniest bit.
>> >>
>> >> ChucK was created as a real computer language using YACC and LEX as
>> >> was SuperCollider, but it runs at 1 sample frame per "tick" of the
>> >> signal processing graph (ksmps=1 all the time), and its opcodes are
>> >> based mostly on the Synthesis Tookit in C++.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Mike
>> >>
>> >> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I mean an interpreter: supplying an instrument interactively, loading
>> >>> it, playing it,
>> >>> unloading, loading a different one etc.
>> >>> We currently can have 'interpreted scores', ie. RT events, but I
>> would
>> >>> like to see this extended to instruments.
>> >>>
>> >>> Victor
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:50, Michael Gogins wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> What exactly do you mean by an interpreter?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If you mean the ability to edit both compositions and scores in a
>> >>>> single editor, press a key to compile and immediately hear the
>> >>>> rendering, we already have that in various forms, indeed the Luajit
>> >>>> that was being asked about is one form of this if you use it with an
>> >>>> editor that knows that it is. And people have made all kinds of
>> >>>> environments for this.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If you mean the ability to have a command line open in a running
>> >>>> instance of Csound, that's something else, but I think that is
>> >>>> probably what you mean, isn't it? That would be something like Ge
>> >>>> Wang's system ChucK.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Regards,
>> >>>> Mike
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 10/15/09, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> while I get the live coding thing, I am not too sure about SC3
>> using
>> >>>>> less
>> >>>>> CPU than Csound. I have not seen any measurements of one against
>> the
>> >>>>> other and would doubt very much that similar synthesis algorithms
>> run
>> >>>>> faster
>> >>>>> on SC3.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> And, if you excuse me my opinion, the OOP in SC is a mess, it
>> >>>>> complicates things
>> >>>>> more than it helps (three hundred ways of doing things). It is the
>> >>>>> inverse of simplicity
>> >>>>> and elegance (that you see for instance in another OOP language
>> like
>> >>>>> Python).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Because it tries to do too much in one (algorithmic stuff and
>> >>>>> synthesis) it can get unwieldy.
>> >>>>> IMHO while there might be advantages to that approach, it is better
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> have a signal-processing
>> >>>>> language as a separate entity
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> For instance, one of the things I like about Csound is that when
>> you
>> >>>>> have an audio
>> >>>>> variable, it is an audio signal you are dealing with, not a
>> reference
>> >>>>> to some object
>> >>>>> running on a server.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What I like in SC3 is the existence of an interpreter, which I hope
>> >>>>> in
>> >>>>> the future we
>> >>>>> might have in Csound.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Victor
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I certainly did not mean to imply that Supercollider is superior
>> to
>> >>>>>>> Csound.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I didn't mean to sound annoyed (or annoying!), I understand your
>> >>>>>> frustration. But believe me it is no where near the frustration I
>> >>>>>> feel towards digidesign right now, particularly as they tell me
>> that
>> >>>>>> my free support period is over and I have to start paying £1 per
>> min
>> >>>>>> to get help on the phone :-0 duhhh, I'm moving to Ardour...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Well I think Supercollider IS superior (shoot me dead) to Csound
>> in
>> >>>>>> so many respects: e.g. live coding, low CPU, algorithmic stuff,
>> >>>>>> coding efficiency due to the object-orientated language and easier
>> >>>>>> source code to manage and build on OSX as it is build for Mac (no
>> >>>>>> use for you as you're on windows). But Csound certainly makes up
>> for
>> >>>>>> it in other areas at which Supercollider is perhaps not so good. I
>> >>>>>> know I would never use SC3 extensively as I don't need all the
>> >>>>>> things mentioned above.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> In reply to Victor about being limited to one interface with SC3:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Systems_interfacing_with_SC
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Good luck with fixing things!
>> >>>>>> Peiman
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> >>>>> 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 this list.
>> >>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>> >>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> >>> 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 this list.
>> >> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>> "unsubscribe
>> >> csound"
>> >
>> >
>> > Send bugs reports to this list.
>> > To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>> "unsubscribe
>> > csound"=
>> >
>> >
>> > Send bugs reports to this list.
>> > To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>> "unsubscribe
>> > csound"
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.badmuthahubbard.com
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
> 
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Csound-5.11-Disappointment-tp25896063p25936605.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

> Dear francibal,
> thanks very much.
> I sax there two versions for winXP,
> Csound5.10.1-gnu-win32-d.exeand
> Csound5.10.1-gnu-win32-f.exe
> What is the differnece between them?
>

The d refers to Double precision internal working
  f is for float internals.

BTW, what problems were you having with 5.11?  I did not follow

==John ff



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"