On my win2K box, I run csound5 with ASIO to a m-audio
quattro USB with lowest latency setting and low settings
of -B and -b. The best latency in town as far as synthesis
systems on Windows are concerned.

Victor

>
> Whew!  So I'm not crazy.  The thing is: I have no issues
> with the same devices and CSOUNDAV.  I want to move
> forward to cs5, but I use csound alot in a live context.
> b
>
> On 2/6/06, Bill Beck  wrote:
> > I've had the same issues with M-Audio and input latency
> > with Csound5. Although I get great performance with
> > output (64/128 buffers), not even huge buffers get
> > smooth audio in. This is also definitely using the ASIO
> drivers (queried with -idevaudio99). For both firewire and
> pci cards. >
> > Has anyone using winXP with csound5 had  good audio IN
> > and OUT latency, simultaneously? I'd love to hear about
> > their hardware specs, It might be worth buying a better
> device. >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bill B
> >
> > Ben McAllister wrote:
> >
> > > Update - what's happening is that csound is resetting
> > > the M-Audio's input latency to a very high 2048
> > > samples after I set it myself to 64.  I didn't have
> > > much time to spend on this last night, but will
> explore more over the weekend.  Ring any bells for anyone?
> > >  Thanks in advance - Ben
> > >
> > > PS - I am 100% positive I am passing csound the
> > > correct ASIO driver # for input and output on the
> > commandline. >
> > > On 1/3/06, *Ben McAllister* < benmca@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >     Thanks for the feedback everyone - I'll need to
> > >     stop by my studio tonight and check it out.  FWIW,
> > >     the M-Audio ASIO driver performs well in other
> > >     applications (Cubase, Logic), so I figured there
> was no need to check the control panel, _and_ that
> > >     behavior would be consistent across apps.  One
> > >     caveat - I'm debugging this in the context of a
> > >     larger instrument (my vcs3 emulator, if anyone
> remembers me posting that).  Since it would be more
> > >     helpful from a debugging perspective, I'll make a
> > >     stripped-down test - say, a single instr
> > >     containing only a simple in/out combo - and see if
> the results are consistent with what I'm seeing in my vcs3
> > >     instrument. Thanks again - b
> > >
> > >
> > >     On 1/3/06, *Michael Gogins* < gogins@pipeline.com
> > >     > wrote:
> > >
> > >         With Csound 5 and ASIO in the past, I have
> > >         been able to get 10 to 15 ms delay without
> > >         dropouts, 5 to 10 ms delay with some dropouts.
> > I will be checking this again soon. >
> > >         -----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Ben McAllister  > > >>Sent: Jan 3, 2006 1:17 PM
> > >>To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> >  >>Subject: [Csnd]
> > realtime input latency >>
> > >>Hi All -
> > >>
> > >>What is the expected behavior of realtime input for
> > >         the 12/13 build of
> > >>csound5?  I'm running a 2.4gHz Win2k pc with 1.5 G Ram
> > >         , M-Audio 1010LT
> > >>soundcard.  Using the in, ins, and inch ugens, I'm
> > >         getting ~300ms delay with
> > >>the ASIO drivers included with my card at sr=44100
> > >         (this even with kr=441).
> > >>Rt output is great, and RT MIDI input is good as well.
> > >          I will do more
> > >>experimentation, but thought I'd also do a status
> > >         check with the list, in
> > >>case there is a known issue.  Thanks!
> > >>
> > >>Ben McAllister
> > >> http://www.listenfaster.com
> >  >
> > >
> > >
> > >         --
> > >         Send bugs reports to this list.
> > >         To unsubscribe, send email to
> > >         csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
> > >         
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > Send bugs reports to this list.
> > To unsubscribe, send email to
> csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk >
> --
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to
> csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Victor,

With audio in and out? That's the key problem that Ben and I are having. 
No problems with audio out, and we get great latency with commerical 
software on the same Asio devices.
More thoughts are welcome. I'd love to ditch Max as my realtime audio in 
processor.

-Bill B

Victor Lazzarini wrote:

>On my win2K box, I run csound5 with ASIO to a m-audio
>quattro USB with lowest latency setting and low settings
>of -B and -b. The best latency in town as far as synthesis
>systems on Windows are concerned.
>
>Victor
>
>  
>
>>Whew!  So I'm not crazy.  The thing is: I have no issues
>>with the same devices and CSOUNDAV.  I want to move
>>forward to cs5, but I use csound alot in a live context.
>>b
>>
>>On 2/6/06, Bill Beck  wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I've had the same issues with M-Audio and input latency
>>>with Csound5. Although I get great performance with
>>>output (64/128 buffers), not even huge buffers get
>>>smooth audio in. This is also definitely using the ASIO
>>>      
>>>
>>drivers (queried with -idevaudio99). For both firewire and
>>pci cards. >
>>    
>>
>>>Has anyone using winXP with csound5 had  good audio IN
>>>and OUT latency, simultaneously? I'd love to hear about
>>>their hardware specs, It might be worth buying a better
>>>      
>>>
>>device. >
>>    
>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Bill B
>>>
>>>Ben McAllister wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Update - what's happening is that csound is resetting
>>>>the M-Audio's input latency to a very high 2048
>>>>samples after I set it myself to 64.  I didn't have
>>>>much time to spend on this last night, but will
>>>>        
>>>>
>>explore more over the weekend.  Ring any bells for anyone?
>>    
>>
>>>> Thanks in advance - Ben
>>>>
>>>>PS - I am 100% positive I am passing csound the
>>>>correct ASIO driver # for input and output on the
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>commandline. >
>>>      
>>>
>>>>On 1/3/06, *Ben McAllister* < benmca@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    Thanks for the feedback everyone - I'll need to
>>>>    stop by my studio tonight and check it out.  FWIW,
>>>>    the M-Audio ASIO driver performs well in other
>>>>    applications (Cubase, Logic), so I figured there
>>>>        
>>>>
>>was no need to check the control panel, _and_ that
>>    
>>
>>>>    behavior would be consistent across apps.  One
>>>>    caveat - I'm debugging this in the context of a
>>>>    larger instrument (my vcs3 emulator, if anyone
>>>>        
>>>>
>>remembers me posting that).  Since it would be more
>>    
>>
>>>>    helpful from a debugging perspective, I'll make a
>>>>    stripped-down test - say, a single instr
>>>>    containing only a simple in/out combo - and see if
>>>>        
>>>>
>>the results are consistent with what I'm seeing in my vcs3
>>    
>>
>>>>    instrument. Thanks again - b
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    On 1/3/06, *Michael Gogins* < gogins@pipeline.com
>>>>    > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        With Csound 5 and ASIO in the past, I have
>>>>        been able to get 10 to 15 ms delay without
>>>>        dropouts, 5 to 10 ms delay with some dropouts.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I will be checking this again soon. >
>>>      
>>>
>>>>        -----Original Message-----
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>From: Ben McAllister >>>>          
>>>>>
>>>> >>Sent: Jan 3, 2006 1:17 PM
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>> >>Subject: [Csnd]
>>>realtime input latency >>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>Hi All -
>>>>>
>>>>>What is the expected behavior of realtime input for
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>        the 12/13 build of
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>csound5?  I'm running a 2.4gHz Win2k pc with 1.5 G Ram
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>        , M-Audio 1010LT
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>soundcard.  Using the in, ins, and inch ugens, I'm
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>        getting ~300ms delay with
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>the ASIO drivers included with my card at sr=44100
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>        (this even with kr=441).
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Rt output is great, and RT MIDI input is good as well.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>         I will do more
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>experimentation, but thought I'd also do a status
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>        check with the list, in
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>case there is a known issue.  Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>Ben McAllister
>>>>>http://www.listenfaster.com
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>> >
>>>      
>>>
>>>>        --
>>>>        Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>>        To unsubscribe, send email to
>>>>        csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>--
>>>Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>To unsubscribe, send email to
>>>      
>>>
>>csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk >
>>--
>>Send bugs reports to this list.
>>To unsubscribe, send email to
>>csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>    
>>

Hello.

Thanks to Michael G for the excellent VST plugin version of Csound VST.

I've encountered strange behavior in Cubase SX, version 3.0.2

I can get it to work as describe in the new manual, however it does not 
load as a VST synth. In fact the "Plug-in Information" dialog listeds 
CsoundVST as an unknown category, not as a synth, which is how other 
synth plugins (such as synthedit) are listed. So my only recourse is to 
create an empty audio track, in which I CAN add CsoundVst as an effect. 
It is on the properties pane of that audio track that I am able to 
access the CsoundVST settings window, by clicking "e" by the audio 
track's inserts. Curiously, I am able to then route MIDI output to that 
plugin (I guess because in general effects plugins can be controlled 
with MIDI?) The only reall trouble is, that I can only play Csound by 
rolling the Cubase transport. When, stopped, The audio track doesn't 
run, and so its plugin's do not sound. In the CsoundVST "settings" tab I 
do select instrument mode, but doesn't seem to change how Cubase views 
it, even after a save-reload cycle. Still doesn't appear in the 
VST-instruments dialog.

Any thoughts? Is there a way to identify CsoundVST as a synth?

Thanks and Cheers,

-Bill B

Hello,

So using the new Csound5, attempting realtime midi in, and it does not 
work with my old csound5-beta command flags.
I used to just type -M99 to get an error and list of all midi devices, 
but that doesn't work anymore. -+rtmidi=PortMidi runs CS5 but no midi is 
getting in and no mention of what device is being used.
Also tried this:
csound -W -+rtaudio=PortAudio -odevaudio21  -+rtmidi=portMIDI -M0 -b16 
-B64 my.orc my.sco

Runs, but again no midi gets through. Also tried all combos of 
-+rtmidi=0 or -+rtmidi=M0 and get no errors, but do get CS running 
without MIDI getting through.

Any thoughts on how to query Csound for the proper names and numbers of 
devices it finds? This really ought to be in the manual somewhere.

Sure hope this series of emails raises issues others have as well as I. 
Or is it just that it's very late at night...

Cheers,

Bill B

With IO, surely, in my work I always use full-duplex.
In fact, at Sounds Electric 05, I did my piece
with Csound5+ASIO on a different computer & card  and
it was fine  (that was winXP; it might be that win2k gives
even better results, as here I have really really low latency).

Victor

At 04:26 09/02/2006, you wrote:
>Victor,
>
>With audio in and out? That's the key problem that Ben and I are having. 
>No problems with audio out, and we get great latency with commerical 
>software on the same Asio devices.
>More thoughts are welcome. I'd love to ditch Max as my realtime audio in 
>processor.
>
>-Bill B
>
>Victor Lazzarini wrote:
>
>>On my win2K box, I run csound5 with ASIO to a m-audio
>>quattro USB with lowest latency setting and low settings
>>of -B and -b. The best latency in town as far as synthesis
>>systems on Windows are concerned.
>>
>>Victor
>>
>>
>>
>>>Whew!  So I'm not crazy.  The thing is: I have no issues
>>>with the same devices and CSOUNDAV.  I want to move
>>>forward to cs5, but I use csound alot in a live context.
>>>b
>>>
>>>On 2/6/06, Bill Beck  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've had the same issues with M-Audio and input latency
>>>>with Csound5. Although I get great performance with
>>>>output (64/128 buffers), not even huge buffers get
>>>>smooth audio in. This is also definitely using the ASIO
>>>>
>>>drivers (queried with -idevaudio99). For both firewire and
>>>pci cards. >
>>>
>>>
>>>>Has anyone using winXP with csound5 had  good audio IN
>>>>and OUT latency, simultaneously? I'd love to hear about
>>>>their hardware specs, It might be worth buying a better
>>>>
>>>device. >
>>>
>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>Bill B
>>>>
>>>>Ben McAllister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Update - what's happening is that csound is resetting
>>>>>the M-Audio's input latency to a very high 2048
>>>>>samples after I set it myself to 64.  I didn't have
>>>>>much time to spend on this last night, but will
>>>>>
>>>explore more over the weekend.  Ring any bells for anyone?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Thanks in advance - Ben
>>>>>
>>>>>PS - I am 100% positive I am passing csound the
>>>>>correct ASIO driver # for input and output on the
>>>>>
>>>>commandline. >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 1/3/06, *Ben McAllister* < benmca@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>    Thanks for the feedback everyone - I'll need to
>>>>>    stop by my studio tonight and check it out.  FWIW,
>>>>>    the M-Audio ASIO driver performs well in other
>>>>>    applications (Cubase, Logic), so I figured there
>>>>>
>>>was no need to check the control panel, _and_ that
>>>
>>>
>>>>>    behavior would be consistent across apps.  One
>>>>>    caveat - I'm debugging this in the context of a
>>>>>    larger instrument (my vcs3 emulator, if anyone
>>>>>
>>>remembers me posting that).  Since it would be more
>>>
>>>
>>>>>    helpful from a debugging perspective, I'll make a
>>>>>    stripped-down test - say, a single instr
>>>>>    containing only a simple in/out combo - and see if
>>>>>
>>>the results are consistent with what I'm seeing in my vcs3
>>>
>>>
>>>>>    instrument. Thanks again - b
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    On 1/3/06, *Michael Gogins* < gogins@pipeline.com
>>>>>    > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>        With Csound 5 and ASIO in the past, I have
>>>>>        been able to get 10 to 15 ms delay without
>>>>>        dropouts, 5 to 10 ms delay with some dropouts.
>>>>>
>>>>I will be checking this again soon. >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>        -----Original Message-----
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>From: Ben McAllister >>>>>
>>>>> >>Sent: Jan 3, 2006 1:17 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>>>>>
>>>> >>Subject: [Csnd]
>>>>realtime input latency >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Hi All -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What is the expected behavior of realtime input for
>>>>>>
>>>>>        the 12/13 build of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>csound5?  I'm running a 2.4gHz Win2k pc with 1.5 G Ram
>>>>>>
>>>>>        , M-Audio 1010LT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>soundcard.  Using the in, ins, and inch ugens, I'm
>>>>>>
>>>>>        getting ~300ms delay with
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the ASIO drivers included with my card at sr=44100
>>>>>>
>>>>>        (this even with kr=441).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rt output is great, and RT MIDI input is good as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>         I will do more
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>experimentation, but thought I'd also do a status
>>>>>>
>>>>>        check with the list, in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>case there is a known issue.  Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ben McAllister
>>>>>>http://www.listenfaster.com
>>>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>        --
>>>>>        Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>>>        To unsubscribe, send email to
>>>>>        csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>>To unsubscribe, send email to
>>>>
>>>csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk >
>>>--
>>>Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>To unsubscribe, send email to
>>>csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>>
>--
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Victor Lazzarini
Music Technology Laboratory
Music Department
National University of Ireland, Maynooth 

Hi Ben,

Try this and see if you experience better or worse results. I've found 
that on Windows buffer-size makes a bit of a difference but also the 
ksmps variable is usually best at 64 or 100 for realtime performance. 
Try it at the Csound default sampling rate of 44100. With these 
settings I get virtually no latency running WinXP SP2 just using the 
native MME driver written by Istvan Varga.

Commercial products like Max/MSP and Reaktor5 use an internal KR 
default of about 400 Hz.

On Feb 9, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Ben McAllister wrote:



-odac -iadc -d -+rtaudio=mme


> sr=44100
> ksmps=64
;ksmps=100
> nchnls=1
>
> 	instr 1	;untitled
>
> ain1	inch	1
> out	ain1
> 	endin


> i1 0 3600
>
e




-David

I'm interested in the question: if you were to reduce music to the
simplest form which still interested you, what would it be?

One can ask this about any kind of composition, but since I'm interested
in researching algorithmic composition, it seems like a good way to
approach it.. that is, to research music in its simplest form.

What would that form be for you? Would, for example, a melody with no
accompaniment be a basic model for music? Would that contain enough of the
essential "features" of music that it would be a worthy testbed for ideas?

I have "Composing Music With Computers" by Miranda, which discusses some
simple compositional systems.. ie., compositional programs which produce
music in a simple form. (They have to be simple because the book is a
survey of techniques.. I think it's great actually, but you do have to
find more sources if you want to understand anything in depth.)

I've noticed that most of the example composition programs or systems he
describes don't appeal to me as *music*.

My favorite music resonates with living movement.. dance, for example, or
any kind of animal movement, or breathing. The thing about animals is that
they don't move in the same way over and over.. there is some variety.
Likewise, I like a sense of a "living pulse" to music. It can be a regular
pulse, but just not like a drum machine (bumper sticker: "drum machines
have no soul"). Or better, it would be an irregular pulse, perhaps one
that speeds up and slows down in a cycle about the same length as a
breath. (Our heartbeats do that.) And it would vary in dynamics.

In essence, good music for me acts as an expression of a living being in
the moment of creating that music.

If you look at the simple examples in Miranda's book, a lot of them are
about composing a single line melody. And rhythm? Some of the methods he
presents use all quarters (i.e., all the same length notes). Other
examples have some notes of different durations, but everything is played
in drum-machine-like precision through midi.

For my tastes, the simplest model of interesting music is beating on a
drum, with a somewhat free and irregular pulse, and lots of dynamic
variation. Just a single drum. But the dynamic variation and living pulse
would be key.

What's key for you?

Mike

Thanks! -+rtmidi=mme did the trick.

-Bill B


Phil wrote:

>On 09/02/06, Bill Beck  wrote:
>
>  
>
>>So using the new Csound5, attempting realtime midi in, and it does not
>>work with my old csound5-beta command flags.
>>I used to just type -M99 to get an error and list of all midi devices,
>>but that doesn't work anymore. -+rtmidi=PortMidi runs CS5 but no midi is
>>getting in and no mention of what device is being used.
>>    
>>
>
>I found that after changing from rc2 and rc3 to 5.00, I had to change
>from -+rtmidi=PortAudio to -+rtmidi=mme. I also found that output
>numbers (for -odac) changed.
>
>I'm not sure why this happened, but using different rtmidi systems
>worked for me.
>
>Hope that helps,
>Phil
>  
>

Istvan Varga wrote:

>On Thursday 09 February 2006 10:12, Bill Beck wrote:
>
>  
>
>>So using the new Csound5, attempting realtime midi in, and it does not 
>>work with my old csound5-beta command flags.
>>I used to just type -M99 to get an error and list of all midi devices, 
>>but that doesn't work anymore.
>>    
>>
>
>Actually, the Gogins package for Win32 does not include the PortMidi
>plugin (pmidi.dll) for some reason. While using the native MME plugin
>instead may be OK, -+rtmidi=mme could have been added to .csoundrc.
>
>  
>
>>-+rtmidi=PortMidi runs CS5 but no midi is  
>>getting in and no mention of what device is being used.
>>Also tried this:
>>csound -W -+rtaudio=PortAudio -odevaudio21  -+rtmidi=portMIDI -M0 -b16 
>>-B64 my.orc my.sco
>>
>>Runs, but again no midi gets through. Also tried all combos of 
>>-+rtmidi=0 or -+rtmidi=M0 and get no errors, but do get CS running 
>>without MIDI getting through.
>>    
>>
>
>How is that possible ? You should get errors like this one (replace
>'portMIDI' with whatever you have specified for -+rtmidi, unless it
>is something like null, winmm, or mme):
>
>error: -+rtmidi='portMIDI': unknown module
> *** error opening MIDI in device: -1 (Unknown MIDI error)
>
>I tested it and the error is printed and performance is aborted.
>  
>

I'll double check that the command line I quoted ...

csound -W -+rtaudio=PortAudio -odevaudio21  -+rtmidi=portMIDI -M0 -b16 -B64 my.orc my.sco

... works as I described.


Csound5 for windows (as an installer at csound.srouceforge.net  
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/csound/Csound5.00_win32.exe?download )
does come with a portmidi.dll in the main \bin directory.

If portMidi is not possible in Windows, then why is the dll there? Also, 
future distributions for windows ought to, as you suggest, add 
-+rtmidi=mme to the .csoundrc. Would have saved me a few hours of 
frustration (which after ten years with Csound I'm used to).

-Bill B

PortMIDI is possible on Windows. I am not sure what is the
matter with the binary distro, but as far as I know (at least here
with my build) it's possible.

Victor

At 17:09 10/02/2006, you wrote:
>Istvan Varga wrote:
>
>>On Thursday 09 February 2006 10:12, Bill Beck wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>So using the new Csound5, attempting realtime midi in, and it does not 
>>>work with my old csound5-beta command flags.
>>>I used to just type -M99 to get an error and list of all midi devices, 
>>>but that doesn't work anymore.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, the Gogins package for Win32 does not include the PortMidi
>>plugin (pmidi.dll) for some reason. While using the native MME plugin
>>instead may be OK, -+rtmidi=mme could have been added to .csoundrc.
>>
>>
>>
>>>-+rtmidi=PortMidi runs CS5 but no midi is
>>>getting in and no mention of what device is being used.
>>>Also tried this:
>>>csound -W -+rtaudio=PortAudio -odevaudio21  -+rtmidi=portMIDI -M0 -b16 
>>>-B64 my.orc my.sco
>>>
>>>Runs, but again no midi gets through. Also tried all combos of 
>>>-+rtmidi=0 or -+rtmidi=M0 and get no errors, but do get CS running 
>>>without MIDI getting through.
>>>
>>
>>How is that possible ? You should get errors like this one (replace
>>'portMIDI' with whatever you have specified for -+rtmidi, unless it
>>is something like null, winmm, or mme):
>>
>>error: -+rtmidi='portMIDI': unknown module
>>*** error opening MIDI in device: -1 (Unknown MIDI error)
>>
>>I tested it and the error is printed and performance is aborted.
>>
>
>I'll double check that the command line I quoted ...
>
>csound -W -+rtaudio=PortAudio -odevaudio21  -+rtmidi=portMIDI -M0 -b16 
>-B64 my.orc my.sco
>
>... works as I described.
>
>
>Csound5 for windows (as an installer at csound.srouceforge.net
>http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/csound/Csound5.00_win32.exe?download )
>does come with a portmidi.dll in the main \bin directory.
>
>If portMidi is not possible in Windows, then why is the dll there? Also, 
>future distributions for windows ought to, as you suggest, add 
>-+rtmidi=mme to the .csoundrc. Would have saved me a few hours of 
>frustration (which after ten years with Csound I'm used to).
>
>-Bill B
>
>
>--
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Victor Lazzarini
Music Technology Laboratory
Music Department
National University of Ireland, Maynooth 

> hi
>
> On 2/9/06, Michael Mossey  wrote:
>> What's key for you?
>
> patterns in sound
> also important is an understanding that my key may not be your key [so
> ... we open different locks]
>
>
> -=+=-
>
> also i thought it was interesting that cage was mentioned so soon, and
> became divisive almost immediately. poor john- just wanted to open up
> people's ears [and minds], but became the poster boy for lunatic
> experimentation.

I like his idea of listening to naturally occuring sounds as music. I've
noticed that 4'33" is often described as "silence" when I thought that
wasn't his point.

Mike

Mike, 

I would be interested in hearing more about the algorithmic process that you
used to create "Five Little Pieces for Trombone Duet".  These pieces are
really interesting because they are atonal and yet there is a clearly
audible "structure" or "unity" to the melodies but they still manage to
sound "hand-crafted" and not algorithmic.  (Maybe they aren't?)

Anthony Kozar
anthonykozar AT sbcglobal DOT net

Michael Mossey wrote on 2/9/06 10:50 PM:

> I'm interested in the question: if you were to reduce music to the
> simplest form which still interested you, what would it be?

Uh, actually they aren't algorithmic. I hate to disappoint you, but I
couldn't do anything like that algorithmically! Right now I'm just playing
with some simple ideas. Thanks for the interest, though.

Mike





> Mike,
>
> I would be interested in hearing more about the algorithmic process that
> you
> used to create "Five Little Pieces for Trombone Duet".  These pieces are
> really interesting because they are atonal and yet there is a clearly
> audible "structure" or "unity" to the melodies but they still manage to
> sound "hand-crafted" and not algorithmic.  (Maybe they aren't?)
>
> Anthony Kozar
> anthonykozar AT sbcglobal DOT net
>
> Michael Mossey wrote on 2/9/06 10:50 PM:
>
>> I'm interested in the question: if you were to reduce music to the
>> simplest form which still interested you, what would it be?
>
> --
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>