Thomas Huber wrote:
>> with the list?  What version of CSound are you running?  Obviously it's 
>
>I'm using the unix version of csound (on linux-2.2), and I reduce the
>buffers with the '-b' and '-B' option to 128 bytes and I set the
>sampling rate to 22050 Hz (mono) and the kontrol rate to 2205 Hz to
>have a good realtime response.

That's great!  I've also been thinking of investing time in building a
Linux box (for various reasons -- mostly because as a Unix-bred programmer
I'm tired of being chafed creatively by Win95 even though I use it
constantly for
utilitarian purposes like word processing, online stuff, etc).  This is
extremely enheartening news.

>No, I write the orc's 'by hand'. In my opinion, the .orc language is very
>simple, and writing orc's with a normal text editor is much faster than
>using a GUI. The sco's also become very simple when using MIDI input.
>There are just the function tables I use and the effect instruments that
>are always 'on' like a 'global reverb'.

Hmmm...interesting.  I'd been playing around with the latest Bath build of
CSound for PC/Win95 and after coming to the conclusion that DOS EDIT is not
an ideal sequencing tool (!) I had been mucking with VisOrc.  Unfortunately
VisOrc apparently still has some interface issues with the new build, and I
haven't had the time to play around with it further.

With a setup like the one you're describing, though it makes sense to use
a text-based executable if you're interfacing through outboard MIDI gear
anyway.

>At the moment I try to create my first _real_ songs. Up to now, I have just
>made 'experimental noise'.

Been there, done that. :)  *Still* doing that, along with more structured
material.  I like "experimental noise"! :)