Slightly O.T. -- Soundpipe questions
| Date | 2016-05-29 14:11 |
| From | Aaron Krister Johnson |
| Subject | Slightly O.T. -- Soundpipe questions |
Hi list (and maybe most specifically Paul Batchelor): What are the perceived advantages of soundpipe over Csound. It seems intriguing in its lightweight aspect. Is it higher performance than Csound as a result, in terms of speed/memory/efficiency? Also, how is it triggered? Doe sit have a score language? Midi inerface? OSC? Thanks for fielding the inquiries. Best, |
| Date | 2016-05-29 14:50 |
| From | Rory Walsh |
| Subject | Re: Slightly O.T. -- Soundpipe questions |
I'm not really sure the compare can, or should be compared. Soundpipe is a low-level audio library. User need to write code in some flavour of C and compile binaries in order to use use any of soundpipe's processing algorithms. That's one of the reason why it's code-base is quite small. It merely provides methods that programmers can call. On 29 May 2016 at 14:11, Aaron Krister Johnson <akjmicro@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| Date | 2016-05-30 05:18 |
| From | Paul Batchelor |
| Subject | Re: Slightly O.T. -- Soundpipe questions |
Soundpipe is much easier to embed with other applications compared to Csound. It also tends to be a little more portable than Csound. Since it uses code from many Csound opcodes, it more often than not sounds identical to Csound. However, it's a lot more low level. Its just a C library. No language or score interface. No MIDI, OSC, or anything like that. You'd need to build stuff on top of Soundpipe. I've done a bit of that with my project Sporth: http://paulbatchelor.github.io/proj/sporth -P I'm not really sure the compare can, or should be compared. Soundpipe is a low-level audio library. User need to write code in some flavour of C and compile binaries in order to use use any of soundpipe's processing algorithms. That's one of the reason why it's code-base is quite small. It merely provides methods that programmers can call. On 29 May 2016 at 14:11, Aaron Krister Johnson <akjmicro@gmail.com> wrote:
|