Hi,

I'm planning on doing some things with Csound5 on Windows and was 
looking for a front-end to use. I've been away from the world of Csound 
for a while so I just wanted to check on the status and features of the 
various front-ends. I'm particularly looking for something that can 
render files and also play back the rendered audio so that I don't have 
to swap programs constantly.

 From what I can see, the following are no longer being developed for 
Windows:

WinXoundPro
CSEdit
Cecilia

That leaves the following:

Lettuce
Blue
Cabel
Winsound

Blue seems like a bit of overkill for what I'm currently doing (just 
some simple things to get started), and Winsound isn't quite ready yet 
(?). Lettuce can't play back audio files and Cabel doesn't have a 
built-in editor.

Is that right?

Cheers,

Chris

 >Lettuce can't play back audio files

It will soon.... I have a feature in *my* current version that will let 
users double-click an audio file string that appears in the .csd and 
launch a lightweight player to play it, is that ok or would you prefer 
an integrated audio player? The useful thing about a lightweight 
external player is that it can support all file types whereas if I were 
to integrate one I could not guarantee that. I've also added a feature 
that will automatically load all of a csound files associated audio 
files into an editor of your choice. It would be nice to have an audio 
editor in Lettuce but if I started that now I would never get around to 
sorting out the basic things!

Rory.






Also do you need

> Is that right?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris

In my case, either would be OK, although I'd prefer the integrated 
player. The main thing would be not having to reload the audio file each 
time after rendering. Even if the player only handled .wavs that would 
be OK. File conversions can be left to things like Audacity or Sox. 
Maybe an interface to Sox could be added though? I don't think an audio 
editor is necessary.

Cheers,

Chris

I was thinking that another nice feature for Lettuce might be buttons 
for rendering in real-time and rendering offline to a file--something 
like "Perform" for real-time and "Render" for offline.

I also think that code folding in the editor might be nice.

Cheers,

Chris

Rory Walsh wrote:
>  >Lettuce can't play back audio files
> 
> It will soon.... I have a feature in *my* current version that will let 
> users double-click an audio file string that appears in the .csd and 
> launch a lightweight player to play it, is that ok or would you prefer 
> an integrated audio player? The useful thing about a lightweight 
> external player is that it can support all file types whereas if I were 
> to integrate one I could not guarantee that. I've also added a feature 
> that will automatically load all of a csound files associated audio 
> files into an editor of your choice. It would be nice to have an audio 
> editor in Lettuce but if I started that now I would never get around to 
> sorting out the basic things!
> 
> Rory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also do you need
> 
>> Is that right?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris

I'm not so sure about 'perform' and 'render'. I like the fact that in 
order to use Lettuce effectively one still has to know for instance how 
to set the csound options in order to render to disk or how to set it to 
render in real-time. I guess I want to steer clear of things that will 
hinder peoples exploration of csound. I think that if I include too many 
handy features Lettuce will become a composition environment of it's own 
rather than being a straightforward csound editor/frontend. Code folding 
on the other hand would be great, I just don't know how easy it would be 
to implement...

Rory.


Chris Share wrote:
> I was thinking that another nice feature for Lettuce might be buttons 
> for rendering in real-time and rendering offline to a file--something 
> like "Perform" for real-time and "Render" for offline.
> 
> I also think that code folding in the editor might be nice.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> Rory Walsh wrote:
>>  >Lettuce can't play back audio files
>>
>> It will soon.... I have a feature in *my* current version that will 
>> let users double-click an audio file string that appears in the .csd 
>> and launch a lightweight player to play it, is that ok or would you 
>> prefer an integrated audio player? The useful thing about a 
>> lightweight external player is that it can support all file types 
>> whereas if I were to integrate one I could not guarantee that. I've 
>> also added a feature that will automatically load all of a csound 
>> files associated audio files into an editor of your choice. It would 
>> be nice to have an audio editor in Lettuce but if I started that now I 
>> would never get around to sorting out the basic things!
>>
>> Rory.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Also do you need
>>
>>> Is that right?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Chris

I was thinking along the lines of, say, a dialog box for the two 
options. The user would still be required to enter the appropriate 
parameters so in that sense it won't hinder people's exploration of 
sound (in fact, it could be argued that this would encourage exploration 
of Csound because it means people can get on with making music rather 
than worrying about arcane command line parameters). Also, it could be 
made over-ridable in the .csd file.

Just a thought...

BTW, how do you see the differences between a composition environment 
and a csound editor/frontend?

Cheers,

Chris

Rory Walsh wrote:
> I'm not so sure about 'perform' and 'render'. I like the fact that in 
> order to use Lettuce effectively one still has to know for instance how 
> to set the csound options in order to render to disk or how to set it to 
> render in real-time. I guess I want to steer clear of things that will 
> hinder peoples exploration of csound. I think that if I include too many 
> handy features Lettuce will become a composition environment of it's own 
> rather than being a straightforward csound editor/frontend. Code folding 
> on the other hand would be great, I just don't know how easy it would be 
> to implement...
> 
> Rory.
> 
> 
> Chris Share wrote:
> 
>> I was thinking that another nice feature for Lettuce might be buttons 
>> for rendering in real-time and rendering offline to a file--something 
>> like "Perform" for real-time and "Render" for offline.
>>
>> I also think that code folding in the editor might be nice.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Rory Walsh wrote:
>>
>>>  >Lettuce can't play back audio files
>>>
>>> It will soon.... I have a feature in *my* current version that will 
>>> let users double-click an audio file string that appears in the .csd 
>>> and launch a lightweight player to play it, is that ok or would you 
>>> prefer an integrated audio player? The useful thing about a 
>>> lightweight external player is that it can support all file types 
>>> whereas if I were to integrate one I could not guarantee that. I've 
>>> also added a feature that will automatically load all of a csound 
>>> files associated audio files into an editor of your choice. It would 
>>> be nice to have an audio editor in Lettuce but if I started that now 
>>> I would never get around to sorting out the basic things!
>>>
>>> Rory.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also do you need
>>>
>>>> Is that right?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Chris

> BTW, how do you see the differences between a composition environment 
> and a csound editor/frontend?

I can't really put my finger on it. I don't want people to become so 
dependant on a feature of Lettuce that they find it difficult to do the 
same thing in a normal text editor and command line. For example users 
of 'Blue' who really use Blue to it's full capacity would be hard 
pressed to achieve the same results in notepad, given the range of great 
utilities provided by Blue. I'd rather this wasn't the case with 
Lettuce. Does this make any sense?

Rory.

P.S. When I mentioned users of Blue who'd be hard pressed to achieve the 
same results in notepad, I'm of course talking about myself!

> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> Rory Walsh wrote:
>> I'm not so sure about 'perform' and 'render'. I like the fact that in 
>> order to use Lettuce effectively one still has to know for instance 
>> how to set the csound options in order to render to disk or how to set 
>> it to render in real-time. I guess I want to steer clear of things 
>> that will hinder peoples exploration of csound. I think that if I 
>> include too many handy features Lettuce will become a composition 
>> environment of it's own rather than being a straightforward csound 
>> editor/frontend. Code folding on the other hand would be great, I just 
>> don't know how easy it would be to implement...
>>
>> Rory.

Then give people the option to do both. Personally I find using the 
command line a PITA.

I also think that now that Csound has become a usable real-time 
application there's going to be 2 distinct ways in which people use the 
program--real-time (like Max/PD for "jamming", etc.) and offline (for 
more complex scores), with many users jumping from one to the other. 
Having to reset command line options is a pain and something I would 
like the frontend to handle.

Just my 2c worth...

Cheers,

Chris

Rory Walsh wrote:
>> BTW, how do you see the differences between a composition environment 
>> and a csound editor/frontend?
> 
> 
> I can't really put my finger on it. I don't want people to become so 
> dependant on a feature of Lettuce that they find it difficult to do the 
> same thing in a normal text editor and command line. For example users 
> of 'Blue' who really use Blue to it's full capacity would be hard 
> pressed to achieve the same results in notepad, given the range of great 
> utilities provided by Blue. I'd rather this wasn't the case with 
> Lettuce. Does this make any sense?
> 
> Rory.
> 
> P.S. When I mentioned users of Blue who'd be hard pressed to achieve the 
> same results in notepad, I'm of course talking about myself!
> 
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Rory Walsh wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not so sure about 'perform' and 'render'. I like the fact that in 
>>> order to use Lettuce effectively one still has to know for instance 
>>> how to set the csound options in order to render to disk or how to 
>>> set it to render in real-time. I guess I want to steer clear of 
>>> things that will hinder peoples exploration of csound. I think that 
>>> if I include too many handy features Lettuce will become a 
>>> composition environment of it's own rather than being a 
>>> straightforward csound editor/frontend. Code folding on the other 
>>> hand would be great, I just don't know how easy it would be to 
>>> implement...
>>>
>>> Rory.

Sure, I see what you mean. I could add an overwrite 'CsOptions' option 
so the users could select from a preset list of output options that they 
can edit themselves. I am working on getting a new update out today so 
this option will most likely not appear until the next update. Cheers,
Rory.


Chris Share wrote:
> Then give people the option to do both. Personally I find using the 
> command line a PITA.
> 
> I also think that now that Csound has become a usable real-time 
> application there's going to be 2 distinct ways in which people use the 
> program--real-time (like Max/PD for "jamming", etc.) and offline (for 
> more complex scores), with many users jumping from one to the other. 
> Having to reset command line options is a pain and something I would 
> like the frontend to handle.
> 
> Just my 2c worth...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> Rory Walsh wrote:
>>> BTW, how do you see the differences between a composition environment 
>>> and a csound editor/frontend?
>>
>>
>> I can't really put my finger on it. I don't want people to become so 
>> dependant on a feature of Lettuce that they find it difficult to do 
>> the same thing in a normal text editor and command line. For example 
>> users of 'Blue' who really use Blue to it's full capacity would be 
>> hard pressed to achieve the same results in notepad, given the range 
>> of great utilities provided by Blue. I'd rather this wasn't the case 
>> with Lettuce. Does this make any sense?
>>
>> Rory.
>>
>> P.S. When I mentioned users of Blue who'd be hard pressed to achieve 
>> the same results in notepad, I'm of course talking about myself!
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Rory Walsh wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure about 'perform' and 'render'. I like the fact that 
>>>> in order to use Lettuce effectively one still has to know for 
>>>> instance how to set the csound options in order to render to disk or 
>>>> how to set it to render in real-time. I guess I want to steer clear 
>>>> of things that will hinder peoples exploration of csound. I think 
>>>> that if I include too many handy features Lettuce will become a 
>>>> composition environment of it's own rather than being a 
>>>> straightforward csound editor/frontend. Code folding on the other 
>>>> hand would be great, I just don't know how easy it would be to 
>>>> implement...
>>>>
>>>> Rory.

Great work--thanks!

Cheers,

Chris

Rory Walsh wrote:
> Sure, I see what you mean. I could add an overwrite 'CsOptions' option 
> so the users could select from a preset list of output options that they 
> can edit themselves. I am working on getting a new update out today so 
> this option will most likely not appear until the next update. Cheers,
> Rory.
> 
> 
> Chris Share wrote:
> 
>> Then give people the option to do both. Personally I find using the 
>> command line a PITA.
>>
>> I also think that now that Csound has become a usable real-time 
>> application there's going to be 2 distinct ways in which people use 
>> the program--real-time (like Max/PD for "jamming", etc.) and offline 
>> (for more complex scores), with many users jumping from one to the 
>> other. Having to reset command line options is a pain and something I 
>> would like the frontend to handle.
>>
>> Just my 2c worth...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Rory Walsh wrote:
>>
>>>> BTW, how do you see the differences between a composition 
>>>> environment and a csound editor/frontend?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't really put my finger on it. I don't want people to become so 
>>> dependant on a feature of Lettuce that they find it difficult to do 
>>> the same thing in a normal text editor and command line. For example 
>>> users of 'Blue' who really use Blue to it's full capacity would be 
>>> hard pressed to achieve the same results in notepad, given the range 
>>> of great utilities provided by Blue. I'd rather this wasn't the case 
>>> with Lettuce. Does this make any sense?
>>>
>>> Rory.
>>>
>>> P.S. When I mentioned users of Blue who'd be hard pressed to achieve 
>>> the same results in notepad, I'm of course talking about myself!
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> Rory Walsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not so sure about 'perform' and 'render'. I like the fact that 
>>>>> in order to use Lettuce effectively one still has to know for 
>>>>> instance how to set the csound options in order to render to disk 
>>>>> or how to set it to render in real-time. I guess I want to steer 
>>>>> clear of things that will hinder peoples exploration of csound. I 
>>>>> think that if I include too many handy features Lettuce will become 
>>>>> a composition environment of it's own rather than being a 
>>>>> straightforward csound editor/frontend. Code folding on the other 
>>>>> hand would be great, I just don't know how easy it would be to 
>>>>> implement...
>>>>>
>>>>> Rory.

Here's another idea:

What about an "Export to Cabel" option in Lettuce. This would be really 
cool!!! Coding and editing could be done in Lettuce, while Real-time 
playing could be done in Cabel. Below, is an explanation of how to 
create a Cabel module.

What do you think?

Cheers,

Chris

Because there's still no Cabel module editor available
you have to write the XML file for yourself. Here's the SineVco:

,----[ modules/sound sources/SineVco.xml ]
| 
| 
|   
|     
|   
|   

|     
|   
|   
|     gisinevco   ftgen  0, 0, 4096, 10, 
1
|   
|   /* Sine oscillator */
| opcode SineVco, a, k
|   kfrq xin
|
|   kfrq     limit      kfrq, 0, 50000
|   asig     oscil      1, kfrq, gisinevco
|
|   xout asig
| endop
|   
| 
`----

Just use a similar XML module file as template. The "name" and "csType"
attributes of  are mandatory. The input.vardef attributes "min",
"max", "value", "description" and "digits" (number of digits in floating
points, defaults to 3) are optional. Embed you Csound UDO between the
 tags. As you can see in the SineVco example you can also define
global definitions. It is important that the opcode name, the
module.name attribute and the filename (without .xml) are identical.

Place your new module in the modules directory and you're done. If you
like eyecandy you can also place a JPEG (same basename as your module
and ".jpg" suffix) in the same directory as your module and it gets
skinned with this picture.

I have never used Cabel but I will look into it. You're working me hard 
here Chris! Keep the suggestions flowing however, it's all good.

Rory.

Chris Share wrote:
> Here's another idea:
> 
> What about an "Export to Cabel" option in Lettuce. This would be really 
> cool!!! Coding and editing could be done in Lettuce, while Real-time 
> playing could be done in Cabel. Below, is an explanation of how to 
> create a Cabel module.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> Because there's still no Cabel module editor available
> you have to write the XML file for yourself. Here's the SineVco:
> 
> ,----[ modules/sound sources/SineVco.xml ]
> | 
> |  |        xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="modul.xsd"
> |        name="SineVco" description="Sine oscillator (amplitude 1)">
> |   
> |     
> |   
> |   

> |     
> |   
> |   
> |     gisinevco   ftgen  0, 0, 4096, 10, 
> 1
> |   
> |   /* Sine oscillator */
> | opcode SineVco, a, k
> |   kfrq xin
> |
> |   kfrq     limit      kfrq, 0, 50000
> |   asig     oscil      1, kfrq, gisinevco
> |
> |   xout asig
> | endop
> |   
> | 
> `----
> 
> Just use a similar XML module file as template. The "name" and "csType"
> attributes of  are mandatory. The input.vardef attributes "min",
> "max", "value", "description" and "digits" (number of digits in floating
> points, defaults to 3) are optional. Embed you Csound UDO between the
>  tags. As you can see in the SineVco example you can also define
> global definitions. It is important that the opcode name, the
> module.name attribute and the filename (without .xml) are identical.
> 
> Place your new module in the modules directory and you're done. If you
> like eyecandy you can also place a JPEG (same basename as your module
> and ".jpg" suffix) in the same directory as your module and it gets
> skinned with this picture.