[PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
hey, i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name) and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a fuller sound with the oscillators, he said. i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - not sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a deeper architectural level than that. anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? reasons why this might be the case? -- damian stewart | +351 967 797 263 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] frey | live art with machines | http://www.frey.co.nz ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
what I experience sometimes when I do very basic stuff like using phasors, is that I hear weird comb filtering of my environment after I put down my headphones. similar as if you look into bright light and then close the eyes, and you still see a review-image. regarding the difference between pd and max: are you talking about the music that people produce or are you talking about the digital signal process? m. Damian Stewart wrote: > hey, > > i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name) > and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a > fuller sound with the oscillators, he said. > > i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my > Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - not > sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a > deeper architectural level than that. > > anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? reasons > why this might be the case? > ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 01:28 +, Damian Stewart wrote: > hey, > > i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name) > and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a > fuller sound with the oscillators, he said. > > i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my > Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - not > sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a > deeper architectural level than that. > > anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? reasons > why this might be the case? hey funny... i also heard people saying something similar the other way around. since the same digital algorithm produces the same results on two different machines or in two different softwares, i think there are only very esoteric reasons to believe, that one sounds 'fuller' (what does it mean technically?) or 'richer' (more harmonics?) than the other. for me this goes to a similar direction as the discussion, if oxygen free, golden plated 8mm-diammeter speaker cables sound better than others (i would rather suspect a difference there than between max and pd). hm.. thinking more about that, i wonder whether this guy thinks, that pd people do just different, probably subjectively better sounding stuff. or does he really think, that [phasor~] in pd sounds nicer than the [phasor~] in max? this would be actually quite easy to test, if there is any difference at all. create a wav with same frequency and phase of a [phasor~], once in pd, once in max, and then subtract the one from the other and if you do not get a completely silent file, then... *i shut up* ;-) roman ___ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Roman Haefeli wrote: > hey funny... i also heard people saying something similar the other way > around. > > since the same digital algorithm produces the same results on two > different machines or in two different softwares, i think there are only > very esoteric reasons to believe, that one sounds 'fuller' (what does it > mean technically?) or 'richer' (more harmonics?) than the other. for me > this goes to a similar direction as the discussion, if oxygen free, > golden plated 8mm-diammeter speaker cables sound better than others (i > would rather suspect a difference there than between max and pd). well, he also said that it was because the [osc~] had a larger table size in Pd than in Max, which would make sense. my initial assumption was that it was to do bit-depth. i used to scoff at people who claimed 24 bit was better; but then i spent some time in a studio working with 24 bit audio, and, well, you notice. (but both Pd and Max are 32 bit float, right?) i hear you about the speaker cables; there are differences even amongst digital stuff though. for example when Ableton Live clips, to my ears it clips a lot nicer than ProTools does. (actually ProTools in general sounds very dead - its precision means that you have to work your ass off to get colour into your sound.) and back when i was composing in a multitrack sequencer environment, i remember choosing to use Cubase SX because its audio engine just sounded nicer than any of the other apps of the time (Cakewalk and Logic being the main competitors). > hm.. thinking more about that, i wonder whether this guy thinks, that pd > people do just different, probably subjectively better sounding stuff. > or does he really think, that [phasor~] in pd sounds nicer than the > [phasor~] in max? this would be actually quite easy to test, if there is > any difference at all. create a wav with same frequency and phase of a > [phasor~], once in pd, once in max, and then subtract the one from the > other and if you do not get a completely silent file, > then... *i shut up* ;-) nice idea, but i'd try it with an [osc~]. anyone want to volunteer? -- damian stewart | +351 967 797 263 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] frey | live art with machines | http://www.frey.co.nz ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
hmm, sine waves are one kind of sound, but musical pieces use more than sinewave generators. if there are really technical and software related dsp differences in max and pd then you would find them more in other objects. the wavetable readers could be different (type of interpolation...) the oversampling techniques could be different, noise generators could be different, internal float precision could make a big difference. on the hardware side: da converters can make a difference. (is it overall true that pd runs on cheaper hardware, using cheaper digital-analog converters creating a richer, more distorted sound?). max could use additional filter magic that we don't know of (no source code available...). marius. Libero Mureddu wrote: > Hi all, > I remember some months ago I did the suggested test using oscs from: > Max/MSP, > Pd, > PWGL, > Csound and maybe (not sure anymore), > SuperCollider. > > Well, they produces the same results. > Anyway it was interesting to experience it! > > Here attached is the audacity project file with only max and pd; max > cycle~ output is shorter so one can hear pd osc~ output starting to > play only when the other one is finished. > I reversed the phase using Audacity, to be honest, but I don't think > this makes the test irregular :-) > ciao > > libero > > >> Message: 6 >> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:57:49 +0000 >> From: Damian Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max? >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: PD-List >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> Roman Haefeli wrote: >> >> > hey funny... i also heard people saying something similar the other way >> > around. >> > >> > since the same digital algorithm produces the same results on two >> > different machines or in two different softwares, i think there are only >> > very esoteric reasons to believe, that one sounds 'fuller' (what does it >> > mean technically?) or 'richer' (more harmonics?) than the other. for me >> > this goes to a similar direction as the discussion, if oxygen free, >> > golden plated 8mm-diammeter speaker cables sound better than others (i >> > would rather suspect a difference there than between max and pd). >> >> well, he also said that it was because the [osc~] had a larger table size >> in Pd than in Max, which would make sense. >> >> my initial assumption was that it was to do bit-depth. i used to scoff at >> people who claimed 24 bit was better; but then i spent some time in a >> studio working with 24 bit audio, and, well, you notice. (but both Pd and >> Max are 32 bit float, right?) >> >> i hear you about the speaker cables; there are differences even amongst >> digital stuff though. for example when Ableton Live clips, to my ears it >> clips a lot nicer than ProTools does. (actually ProTools in general sounds >> very dead - its precision means that you have to work your ass off to get >> colour into your sound.) and back when i was composing in a multitrack >> sequencer environment, i remember choosing to use Cubase SX because its >> audio engine just sounded nicer than any of the other apps of the time >> (Cakewalk and Logic being the main competitors). >> >> > hm.. thinking more about that, i wonder whether this guy thinks, that pd >> > people do just different, probably subjectively better sounding stuff. >> > or does he really think, that [phasor~] in pd sounds nicer than the >> > [phasor~] in max? this would be actually quite easy to test, if there is >> > any difference at all. create a wav with same frequency and phase of a >> > [phasor~], once in pd, once in max, and then subtract the one from the >> > other and if you do not get a completely silent file, >> > then... *i shut up* ;-) >> >> nice idea, but i'd try it with an [osc~]. anyone want to volunteer? >> >> -- >> damian stewart | +351 967 797 263 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> frey | live art with machines | http://www.frey.co.nz > > > > > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Hi, my test was in fact a semi-serious one... even if some time ago I did it seriously! My little experience: I've been thinking in the past that max sounded more "detailed" somehow (I used to like a lot the "scope" object, back then), but I'm not a good judge: it also happened to me to carefully modify a plugin reverb tale length, being satisfied, and then realize that it was bypassed, but it sounded different, I swear :-) ciao libero On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 9:59 PM, marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hmm, sine waves are one kind of sound, but musical pieces use more than > sinewave generators. if there are really technical and software related > dsp differences in max and pd then you would find them more in other > objects. the wavetable readers could be different (type of > interpolation...) the oversampling techniques could be different, noise > generators could be different, internal float precision could make a big > difference. > on the hardware side: da converters can make a difference. (is it > overall true that pd runs on cheaper hardware, using cheaper > digital-analog converters creating a richer, more distorted sound?). > max could use additional filter magic that we don't know of (no source > code available...). > marius. > > > > > Libero Mureddu wrote: > > Hi all, > > I remember some months ago I did the suggested test using oscs from: > > Max/MSP, > > Pd, > > PWGL, > > Csound and maybe (not sure anymore), > > SuperCollider. > > > > Well, they produces the same results. > > Anyway it was interesting to experience it! > > > > Here attached is the audacity project file with only max and pd; max > > cycle~ output is shorter so one can hear pd osc~ output starting to > > play only when the other one is finished. > > I reversed the phase using Audacity, to be honest, but I don't think > > this makes the test irregular :-) > > ciao > > > > libero > > > > > >> Message: 6 > >> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:57:49 + > >> From: Damian Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max? > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Cc: PD-List > >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >> > >> Roman Haefeli wrote: > >> > >> > hey funny... i also heard people saying something similar the other way > >> > around. > >> > > >> > since the same digital algorithm produces the same results on two > >> > different machines or in two different softwares, i think there are only > >> > very esoteric reasons to believe, that one sounds 'fuller' (what does it > >> > mean technically?) or 'richer' (more harmonics?) than the other. for me > >> > this goes to a similar direction as the discussion, if oxygen free, > >> > golden plated 8mm-diammeter speaker cables sound better than others (i > >> > would rather suspect a difference there than between max and pd). > >> > >> well, he also said that it was because the [osc~] had a larger table size > >> in Pd than in Max, which would make sense. > >> > >> my initial assumption was that it was to do bit-depth. i used to scoff at > >> people who claimed 24 bit was better; but then i spent some time in a > >> studio working with 24 bit audio, and, well, you notice. (but both Pd and > >> Max are 32 bit float, right?) > >> > >> i hear you about the speaker cables; there are differences even amongst > >> digital stuff though. for example when Ableton Live clips, to my ears it > >> clips a lot nicer than ProTools does. (actually ProTools in general sounds > >> very dead - its precision means that you have to work your ass off to get > >> colour into your sound.) and back when i was composing in a multitrack > >> sequencer environment, i remember choosing to use Cubase SX because its > >> audio engine just sounded nicer than any of the other apps of the time > >> (Cakewalk and Logic being the main competitors). > >> > >> > hm.. thinking more about that, i wonder whether this guy thinks, that pd > >> > people do just different, probably subjectively better sounding stuff.
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Quoting marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > on the hardware side: da converters can make a difference. (is it > overall true that pd runs on cheaper hardware, using cheaper > digital-analog converters creating a richer, more distorted sound?). now that is an interesting observation. probably Pd runs on cheaper hardware (like arm-based pdas), but then i am often using it on the HDSP-MADI card with quite good RME dacs (though probably not audiophile)... anyhow, i am pretty sure that pd and max use the same table-sizes and interpolation for osc~ (ask miller to make sure), so there shouldn't be any difference (doesn't msp's splash screen say "pure-data for max" or something like this?) so in the end i too believe that the only difference between the 2 in a direct comparision would be the audio-hardware, in which case the so called "listening test" would be rendered naught. fgmadsr IOhannes This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
But the problem becomes appearent when you actually do some signal processing with audio data. Max has a flaw about it's floating point precision. At first I was thinking the problem was just about visualisating data(like, when you monitor a signal value, it is rounded and looks wrong but actaul data passing from cables are correct) but later I figured that it was not the issue when I tried to use signal values as control data, it was all quirky. I haven't been using max for a couple of years so I can't find my patches and demonstrate various problems but here is what I remember, might be wrong though someone has to try it: [sig~ 800] | [%~ 300] this should give 200 but it was giving something like 199.9998 (I really can't remember). If I were to test this value with [==~ 200] I was getting zero. So it was the calculation itself that was wrong. There were many problems like this that I experienced and they were really appearent when I tried to use these signals as control sources(by not leaving the audio domain) because the logical processes were failing and I was having to build structures for exceptional rounding errors. And when you process audio and give those to speakers, you can hear that float precision really matters. Max was always sounding dull to me and I always blamed float precision. To my ears and eyes, PD and Supercollider are VERY transparent in this sense. BB PS: I'm not very aware of the technical issues resulting this decreased float precision. So what I believe might be folklore, and I'd be happy to be corrected on this issue. Basically what I think that max/msp has serious flaws in its floating point handling and this results to BAD sound which has that dull msp'ish character. Libero Mureddu wrote: > Hi all, > I remember some months ago I did the suggested test using oscs from: > Max/MSP, > Pd, > PWGL, > Csound and maybe (not sure anymore), > SuperCollider. > > Well, they produces the same results. > Anyway it was interesting to experience it! > > Here attached is the audacity project file with only max and pd; max > cycle~ output is shorter so one can hear pd osc~ output starting to > play only when the other one is finished. > I reversed the phase using Audacity, to be honest, but I don't think > this makes the test irregular :-) > ciao > > libero > > > >> Message: 6 >> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:57:49 + >> From: Damian Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max? >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: PD-List >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> Roman Haefeli wrote: >> >> > hey funny... i also heard people saying something similar the >> other way >> > around. >> > >> > since the same digital algorithm produces the same results on two >> > different machines or in two different softwares, i think there >> are only >> > very esoteric reasons to believe, that one sounds 'fuller' (what >> does it >> > mean technically?) or 'richer' (more harmonics?) than the other. >> for me >> > this goes to a similar direction as the discussion, if oxygen free, >> > golden plated 8mm-diammeter speaker cables sound better than >> others (i >> > would rather suspect a difference there than between max and pd). >> >> well, he also said that it was because the [osc~] had a larger table >> size >> in Pd than in Max, which would make sense. >> >> my initial assumption was that it was to do bit-depth. i used to >> scoff at >> people who claimed 24 bit was better; but then i spent some time in a >> studio working with 24 bit audio, and, well, you notice. (but both >> Pd and >> Max are 32 bit float, right?) >> >> i hear you about the speaker cables; there are differences even amongst >> digital stuff though. for example when Ableton Live clips, to my >> ears it >> clips a lot nicer than ProTools does. (actually ProTools in general >> sounds >> very dead - its precision means that you have to work your ass off >> to get >> colour into your sound.) and back when i was composing in a multitrack >> sequencer environment, i remember choosing to use Cubase SX because its >> audio engine just sounded nicer than any of the other apps of the time >> (Cakewalk and Logic being the main competitors). >> >> > hm.. thinking more about that, i wonder whether this guy thinks, >> that pd >> > people do just different, probably subjectively better sounding >>
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Mar 7, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 01:28 +, Damian Stewart wrote: >> hey, >> >> i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is >> his name) >> and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than >> Max - a >> fuller sound with the oscillators, he said. >> >> i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to >> my ears my >> Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've >> heard - not >> sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's >> at a >> deeper architectural level than that. >> >> anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? >> reasons >> why this might be the case? > > > hey funny... i also heard people saying something similar the other > way > around. > > since the same digital algorithm produces the same results on two > different machines or in two different softwares, i think there are > only > very esoteric reasons to believe, that one sounds 'fuller' (what > does it > mean technically?) or 'richer' (more harmonics?) than the other. > for me > this goes to a similar direction as the discussion, if oxygen free, > golden plated 8mm-diammeter speaker cables sound better than others (i > would rather suspect a difference there than between max and pd). > > hm.. thinking more about that, i wonder whether this guy thinks, > that pd > people do just different, probably subjectively better sounding stuff. > or does he really think, that [phasor~] in pd sounds nicer than the > [phasor~] in max? this would be actually quite easy to test, if > there is > any difference at all. create a wav with same frequency and phase of a > [phasor~], once in pd, once in max, and then subtract the one from the > other and if you do not get a completely silent file, > then... *i shut up* ;-) > I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences between them, but I am guessing that those differences are inside the brain, rather than outside :). Also, consider that MSP started from Pd code. .hc Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick.- David Zicarelli ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in > double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences between > them, but I am guessing that those differences are inside the brain, > rather than outside :). yes, that seems obvious to me too, but this discussion is about the small chance, that there might be a difference in some small details that effectively make a difference.. > Also, consider that MSP started from Pd code. I thought pd came out later (1997) and was completely rewritten with fundamental differences (esp. when it comes to fft and stuff like that). marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Mar 7, 2008, at 7:33 PM, marius schebella wrote: > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >> I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in >> double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences >> between them, but I am guessing that those differences are inside >> the brain, rather than outside :). > > yes, that seems obvious to me too, but this discussion is about the > small chance, that there might be a difference in some small > details that effectively make a difference.. > >> Also, consider that MSP started from Pd code. > > I thought pd came out later (1997) and was completely rewritten > with fundamental differences (esp. when it comes to fft and stuff > like that). Max didn't have MSP until Pd came along, it was all about manipulating MIDI. Check out the copyright splash screen, it says "portions based on Pd 1997-2005". .hc If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.- Thomas Jefferson ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > On Mar 7, 2008, at 7:33 PM, marius schebella wrote: > >> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >> >>> I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in >>> double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences >>> between them, but I am guessing that those differences are inside >>> the brain, rather than outside :). >> >> yes, that seems obvious to me too, but this discussion is about the >> small chance, that there might be a difference in some small details >> that effectively make a difference.. >> >>> Also, consider that MSP started from Pd code. >> >> I thought pd came out later (1997) and was completely rewritten with >> fundamental differences (esp. when it comes to fft and stuff like that). > > Max didn't have MSP until Pd came along, it was all about manipulating > MIDI. Check out the copyright splash screen, it says "portions based on > Pd 1997-2005". no, it says Pd and MSP are based on ideas in Max/FTS, an advanced DSP platform (C) IRCAM. I learned in school (but that was lng ago in 1997) that miller wrote max and max/fts at IRCAM in the mid 80s, max already had signal processing in 1990. then he jumped off, david zicarelli sticked with the existing code and developed msp and miller rewrote pd from scratch in 1996/97. I think max/msp took also code from pd, but that was later. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Mar 7, 2008, at 9:14 PM, marius schebella wrote: > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >> On Mar 7, 2008, at 7:33 PM, marius schebella wrote: >>> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >>> I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences between them, but I am guessing that those differences are inside the brain, rather than outside :). >>> >>> yes, that seems obvious to me too, but this discussion is about >>> the small chance, that there might be a difference in some small >>> details that effectively make a difference.. >>> Also, consider that MSP started from Pd code. >>> >>> I thought pd came out later (1997) and was completely rewritten >>> with fundamental differences (esp. when it comes to fft and stuff >>> like that). >> Max didn't have MSP until Pd came along, it was all about >> manipulating MIDI. Check out the copyright splash screen, it says >> "portions based on Pd 1997-2005". > > no, it says Pd and MSP are based on ideas in Max/FTS, an advanced > DSP platform (C) IRCAM. Look at the line above that one. Max/FTS did have synthesis, but it was on a separate DSP CPU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max/MSP "Max has a number of extensions and incarnations; most notably, a set of audio extensions to the software appeared in 1997, ported from Pure Data. Called MSP (short for either Max Signal Processing or the initials of Miller S. Puckette, the author of both Max and Pd), this "add-on" package for Max allowed for the manipulation of digital audio signals in real-time" .hc > > I learned in school (but that was lng ago in 1997) that miller > wrote max and max/fts at IRCAM in the mid 80s, max already had > signal processing in 1990. then he jumped off, david zicarelli > sticked with the existing code and developed msp and miller rewrote > pd from scratch in 1996/97. > > I think max/msp took also code from pd, but that was later. > marius. Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick.- David Zicarelli ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
ok, so you are right. my reading capabilities get worse from day to day... one more question. I read Pd (c) 1997-2005 The Regents of the University of California? which means the regents of the UC own the rights on Pd??? marius. Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > On Mar 7, 2008, at 9:14 PM, marius schebella wrote: > >> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >>> On Mar 7, 2008, at 7:33 PM, marius schebella wrote: Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in > double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences > between them, but I am guessing that those differences are inside > the brain, rather than outside :). yes, that seems obvious to me too, but this discussion is about the small chance, that there might be a difference in some small details that effectively make a difference.. > Also, consider that MSP started from Pd code. I thought pd came out later (1997) and was completely rewritten with fundamental differences (esp. when it comes to fft and stuff like that). >>> Max didn't have MSP until Pd came along, it was all about >>> manipulating MIDI. Check out the copyright splash screen, it says >>> "portions based on Pd 1997-2005". >> >> no, it says Pd and MSP are based on ideas in Max/FTS, an advanced DSP >> platform (C) IRCAM. > > Look at the line above that one. Max/FTS did have synthesis, but it was > on a separate DSP CPU. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max/MSP > > "Max has a number of extensions and incarnations; most notably, a set of > audio extensions to the software appeared in 1997, ported from Pure > Data. Called MSP (short for either Max Signal Processing or the initials > of Miller S. Puckette, the author of both Max and Pd), this "add-on" > package for Max allowed for the manipulation of digital audio signals in > real-time" > > .hc > >> >> I learned in school (but that was lng ago in 1997) that miller >> wrote max and max/fts at IRCAM in the mid 80s, max already had signal >> processing in 1990. then he jumped off, david zicarelli sticked with >> the existing code and developed msp and miller rewrote pd from scratch >> in 1996/97. >> >> I think max/msp took also code from pd, but that was later. >> marius. > > > > > > > Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick.-David > Zicarelli > > > ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
There is test I use to evaluate one important aspect of all synthesis systems. It tests oscillator accuracy. The patch is by Jean Claude Risset and is an additive concept he called frequency domain grating, and is analogous to diffraction grating used in spectroscopy. Here is Hartmanns paper about it http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/fdg.pdf You take as many sines as the system will handle, typically a thousand or so, and sum them. All must start on exactly the same phase. Now, if we had a series of _all_ frequencies it would give us an impulse, but instead set the difference between each oscillator to be 1 cycle + delta, where delta is very small, maybe 1Hz or less. What you will hear in Csound on a 64 bit system is a ** beautiful ** effect as a "rainbow" of all frequencies apparently plays in sequence. Now, if the oscillators are very good the spacing will be equal and the effect will sound crystal clear with individual frequencies popping in and out in a regular stream. If the oscillators are innacurate (because of distortion, bit depth, asymmetry etc) then you will hear a muddled effect. Any deviation from a perfect sine must introduce other hamonics and these come out in the sequence, so it's an empirical/practical way of testing the quality of a digital system without any special test equipment or measuring other than your ears. Hardly very scientific, but roughly from the few chances I've had to try it on different systems... Csound - the King, all bow before Csound Nyquist/CLM - a close second on some machines Puredata - Not bad, but not good, you can tell something is broken Max - pretty damn awful Reaktor - forget it So I believe there is a difference between Max and Pd and Max is the loser. But of course all software is in development. And it must be said; 1) this only test oscillator accuracy but may also test fp accuracy (I haven't thought it through in detail) 2) It depends how you do it. For example, using table oscillators that precompute is different than taking the cosine (maybe Taylor or poly approximated) of a phasor. If I had all systems running and time I'd try it again, but I don't. If we could define the exact parameters for a patch to eliminate variables I think Rissets diffraction is a very good test that reveals the quality of digital synthesis software. On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:02:00 -0500 marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what I experience sometimes when I do very basic stuff like using > phasors, is that I hear weird comb filtering of my environment after I > put down my headphones. similar as if you look into bright light and > then close the eyes, and you still see a review-image. > regarding the difference between pd and max: are you talking about the > music that people produce or are you talking about the digital signal > process? > m. > > Damian Stewart wrote: > > hey, > > > > i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name) > > and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a > > fuller sound with the oscillators, he said. > > > > i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my > > Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - not > > sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a > > deeper architectural level than that. > > > > anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? reasons > > why this might be the case? > > > > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Use the source ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
I looked for some sounds that demonstrate the difference of oscillator accuracy. All I could find are these two snips from tracks, but it's a fair comparison because; 1) "Functions of Time" (1996) An all Csound composition. http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/FunctionsOfTime-track3.mp3 2) "Look Ma, No hands!" (2005) An all Pd composition. http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/Nohands-short.mp3 Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. It would be good to do a Max vs Pd comparison of the same someday. a. On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:02:00 -0500 marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what I experience sometimes when I do very basic stuff like using > phasors, is that I hear weird comb filtering of my environment after I > put down my headphones. similar as if you look into bright light and > then close the eyes, and you still see a review-image. > regarding the difference between pd and max: are you talking about the > music that people produce or are you talking about the digital signal > process? > m. > > Damian Stewart wrote: > > hey, > > > > i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name) > > and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a > > fuller sound with the oscillators, he said. > > > > i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my > > Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - not > > sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a > > deeper architectural level than that. > > > > anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? reasons > > why this might be the case? > > > > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Use the source ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Yeah but mp3s always sound muddy to me... Martin Andy Farnell wrote: > > I looked for some sounds that demonstrate the difference of oscillator > accuracy. All I could find are these two snips from tracks, but it's a > fair comparison because; > > 1) "Functions of Time" (1996) An all Csound composition. > http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/FunctionsOfTime-track3.mp3 > > 2) "Look Ma, No hands!" (2005) An all Pd composition. > http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/Nohands-short.mp3 > > Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's > comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both > are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while > the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. > > It would be good to do a Max vs Pd comparison of the same someday. > > a. > > > On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:02:00 -0500 > marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> what I experience sometimes when I do very basic stuff like using >> phasors, is that I hear weird comb filtering of my environment after I >> put down my headphones. similar as if you look into bright light and >> then close the eyes, and you still see a review-image. >> regarding the difference between pd and max: are you talking about the >> music that people produce or are you talking about the digital signal >> process? >> m. >> >> Damian Stewart wrote: >>> hey, >>> >>> i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name) >>> and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a >>> fuller sound with the oscillators, he said. >>> >>> i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my >>> Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - not >>> sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a >>> deeper architectural level than that. >>> >>> anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? reasons >>> why this might be the case? >>> >> >> ___ >> PD-list@iem.at mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote: > Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's > comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both > are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while > the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles. Ciao -- Frank ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Frank Barknecht wrote: > Hallo, > Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote: > >> Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's >> comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both >> are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while >> the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. > > Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles. so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank Barknecht wrote: > > Hallo, > > Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote: > > > >> Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's > >> comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both > >> are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while > >> the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. > > > > Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles. > > so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? > marius. Because it's optimised for real-time performance. Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was designed for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU speeds. Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a raytracing scene in 3DMax. In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we could say "what did you expect?!" > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Use the source ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote: > On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 > marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Frank Barknecht wrote: >>> Hallo, >>> Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote: >>> Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. >>> >>> Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles. >> >> so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? >> marius. > > > Because it's optimised for real-time performance. > > Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. > The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was > designed > for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU > speeds. > > Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a > raytracing > scene in 3DMax. > > In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we > could > say "what did you expect?!" It would be very nice to have a "cleansound" library of dsp objects, perhaps ported from Csound. .hc Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war on terrorism.- retired U.S. Army general, William Odom ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > It would be very nice to have a "cleansound" library of dsp objects, > perhaps ported from Csound. > You can already use [csoundapi~], which comes with most csound varieties, to access anything in csound from pd. Martin ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Mar 8, 2008, at 5:30 PM, Martin Peach wrote: > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >> It would be very nice to have a "cleansound" library of dsp >> objects, perhaps ported from Csound. > > You can already use [csoundapi~], which comes with most csound > varieties, to access anything in csound from pd. Right, but doesn't that mean you write your instruments in Csound, then control them in Pd? I was thinking Pd objects using the csound code. .hc ¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido! ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Andy Farnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You take as many sines as the system will handle, typically > a thousand or so, and sum them. All must start on exactly the > same phase. Now, if we had a series of _all_ frequencies it would > give us an impulse, but instead set the difference between each > oscillator to be 1 cycle + delta, where delta is very small, maybe > 1Hz or less. This is an interesting concept, thanks for passing it along. > Hardly very scientific, but roughly from the few chances I've had > to try it on different systems... > > Csound - the King, all bow before Csound yeah boyee -Chuckk -- http://www.badmuthahubbard.com ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 8, 2008, at 5:30 PM, Martin Peach wrote: > > > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >> It would be very nice to have a "cleansound" library of dsp > >> objects, perhaps ported from Csound. > > > > You can already use [csoundapi~], which comes with most csound > > varieties, to access anything in csound from pd. > > > Right, but doesn't that mean you write your instruments in Csound, > then control them in Pd? I was thinking Pd objects using the csound > code. Seems obvious, doesn't it? AFAIK it would be perfectly legal to take the code directly. I find [csoundapi~] very useful. I tend to think, if you want Csound, use Csound, but as a Linux enthusiast I think it's generally better for an option to exist than to not exist. How the two programs are structured is a different question. I don't know for sure, but it might take some substantial changes. Csound uses vectors and scalars for audio and control signals, somewhat different than block size. Then again it might translate easily, I dunno. Csound has a huge library, some of the more advanced stuff might be useful too, not just oscillators. -Chuckk -- http://www.badmuthahubbard.com ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Come on guys, I thought it was the artist not the tool, that was responsible for making amazing sounds. Maybe since PD is free so more artists get a chance to use it? When will they come up with the PD to CSound python conversion script? On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Chuckk Hubbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > On Mar 8, 2008, at 5:30 PM, Martin Peach wrote: > > > > > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > >> It would be very nice to have a "cleansound" library of dsp > > >> objects, perhaps ported from Csound. > > > > > > You can already use [csoundapi~], which comes with most csound > > > varieties, to access anything in csound from pd. > > > > > > Right, but doesn't that mean you write your instruments in Csound, > > then control them in Pd? I was thinking Pd objects using the csound > > code. > > Seems obvious, doesn't it? AFAIK it would be perfectly legal to take > the code directly. > I find [csoundapi~] very useful. I tend to think, if you want Csound, > use Csound, but as a Linux enthusiast I think it's generally better > for an option to exist than to not exist. > How the two programs are structured is a different question. I don't > know for sure, but it might take some substantial changes. Csound > uses vectors and scalars for audio and control signals, somewhat > different than block size. Then again it might translate easily, I > dunno. > Csound has a huge library, some of the more advanced stuff might be > useful too, not just oscillators. > > -Chuckk > > -- > http://www.badmuthahubbard.com > > ___ > > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Sat, 2008-03-08 at 21:25 +, Andy Farnell wrote: > On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 > marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Frank Barknecht wrote: > > > Hallo, > > > Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote: > > > > > >> Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's > > >> comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both > > >> are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while > > >> the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. > > > > > > Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles. > > > > so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? > > marius. > > > Because it's optimised for real-time performance. > > Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. > The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was designed > for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU speeds. sounds reasonable. however, i would be interested to have some illustration of that. what is it, that makes the difference? i'd be most interested to see examples on a rather low level (oscillators, ramp generators etc). the code for both is open, so it should be feasible to find some differences, if there are any. basically, this means also, that it is not possible to generate any intended signal with pd. is that true? roman ___ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Sat, 2008-03-08 at 14:15 -0500, Martin Peach wrote: > Yeah but mp3s always sound muddy to me... would it be possible to post some flac versions of those pieces? roman > Andy Farnell wrote: > > > > I looked for some sounds that demonstrate the difference of oscillator > > accuracy. All I could find are these two snips from tracks, but it's a > > fair comparison because; > > > > 1) "Functions of Time" (1996) An all Csound composition. > > http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/FunctionsOfTime-track3.mp3 > > > > 2) "Look Ma, No hands!" (2005) An all Pd composition. > > http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/Nohands-short.mp3 > > > > Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's > > comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both > > are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while > > the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. > > > > It would be good to do a Max vs Pd comparison of the same someday. > > > > a. > > > > > > On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:02:00 -0500 > > marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> what I experience sometimes when I do very basic stuff like using > >> phasors, is that I hear weird comb filtering of my environment after I > >> put down my headphones. similar as if you look into bright light and > >> then close the eyes, and you still see a review-image. > >> regarding the difference between pd and max: are you talking about the > >> music that people produce or are you talking about the digital signal > >> process? > >> m. > >> > >> Damian Stewart wrote: > >>> hey, > >>> > >>> i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his > >>> name) > >>> and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - > >>> a > >>> fuller sound with the oscillators, he said. > >>> > >>> i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears > >>> my > >>> Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - > >>> not > >>> sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a > >>> deeper architectural level than that. > >>> > >>> anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? > >>> reasons > >>> why this might be the case? > >>> > >> > >> ___ > >> PD-list@iem.at mailing list > >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
> When will they come up with the PD to CSound python conversion script? Drizzly drol.. if it's ever possible have a nice day km ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Mar 8, 2008, at 11:00 PM, Chuckk Hubbard wrote: > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Andy Farnell > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> You take as many sines as the system will handle, typically >> a thousand or so, and sum them. All must start on exactly the >> same phase. Now, if we had a series of _all_ frequencies it would >> give us an impulse, but instead set the difference between each >> oscillator to be 1 cycle + delta, where delta is very small, maybe >> 1Hz or less. > > This is an interesting concept, thanks for passing it along. > >> Hardly very scientific, but roughly from the few chances I've had >> to try it on different systems... >> >> Csound - the King, all bow before Csound > > yeah boyee To muddy the waters a bit, the most 'correct' sound isn't always the best sound. Consider so many people's love of tube amps. They have higher distorsion than transistor amps, yet so many people think they sound better. .hc All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated -John Donne ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Well, why couldn't Pd be as "clean", processors are fast enough these days, and one could always crank up the sample rates of their DSP blocks. Isn't the internal resolution at least 32bit anyway (is it 64bit under any circumstances?) cheers, ~brandon On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote: > On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 > marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Frank Barknecht wrote: >>> Hallo, >>> Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote: >>> Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. >>> >>> Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles. >> >> so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? >> marius. > > > Because it's optimised for real-time performance. > > Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. > The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was > designed > for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU > speeds. > > Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a > raytracing > scene in 3DMax. > > In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we > could > say "what did you expect?!" > > > > > >> >> ___ >> PD-list@iem.at mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > -- > Use the source > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
It could be, it's just a matter of someone writing the code :) That's why I proposed the 'cleansound' library. .hc On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:01 PM, bsoisoi wrote: > Well, why couldn't Pd be as "clean", processors are fast enough these > days, and one could always crank up the sample rates of their DSP > blocks. Isn't the internal resolution at least 32bit anyway (is it > 64bit under any circumstances?) > > cheers, > ~brandon > > > On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote: > >> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 >> marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Frank Barknecht wrote: Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote: > Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's > comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to > Pd, both > are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one > sparkles while > the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles. >>> >>> so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? >>> marius. >> >> >> Because it's optimised for real-time performance. >> >> Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. >> The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was >> designed >> for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU >> speeds. >> >> Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a >> raytracing >> scene in 3DMax. >> >> In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we >> could >> say "what did you expect?!" >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> ___ >>> PD-list@iem.at mailing list >>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ >>> listinfo/pd-list >> >> >> -- >> Use the source >> >> ___ >> PD-list@iem.at mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ >> listinfo/pd-list > > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ > listinfo/pd-list "[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity."-John Gilmore ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > To muddy the waters a bit, the most 'correct' sound isn't always the > best sound. Consider so many people's love of tube amps. They have > higher distorsion than transistor amps, yet so many people think they > sound better. i remember reading about people recreating the Roland 303 and one of the things that made its distinctive sound was that the original power supply was a bit crappy and couldn't really handle it - in fact if you wound up one the filters' resonance too high it would be drawing more power than was available, which would lead to all sorts of fun distortion across the whole circuit. one of my aims for the next little while is to build a pd external that tries to mathematically model the distortion that's going on when an analog (transistor or tube-based) circuit is overpowered, perhaps on a molecular level, to get a nicer sound when i push the delay feedback up too high (which i like to do). lalala... ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Why can't we simply have the option to turn up (or turn down!) the resolution of the objects we already have? This is considerably less complex. ~Brandon On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > It could be, it's just a matter of someone writing the code :) > That's why I proposed the 'cleansound' library. > > .hc > > On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:01 PM, bsoisoi wrote: > >> Well, why couldn't Pd be as "clean", processors are fast enough these >> days, and one could always crank up the sample rates of their DSP >> blocks. Isn't the internal resolution at least 32bit anyway (is it >> 64bit under any circumstances?) >> >> cheers, >> ~brandon >> >> >> On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 >>> marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Frank Barknecht wrote: > Hallo, > Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote: > >> Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's >> comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to >> Pd, both >> are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one >> sparkles while >> the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. > > Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles. so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? marius. >>> >>> >>> Because it's optimised for real-time performance. >>> >>> Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. >>> The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was >>> designed >>> for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU >>> speeds. >>> >>> Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a >>> raytracing >>> scene in 3DMax. >>> >>> In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we >>> could >>> say "what did you expect?!" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Use the source >>> >>> ___ >>> PD-list@iem.at mailing list >>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> >> >> ___ >> PD-list@iem.at mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > "[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are > deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from > scarcity."-John Gilmore > > ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
You can already do that by setting the sample rate as high or low as your hardware will support and using the [block~] object to set the control rate to the resolution you want. It would be interesting to try to build pd using doubles instead of floats, but it would necessitate changing the size of atoms... Max/MSP uses doubles everywhere for its 'floats'. Martin Brandon Zeeb wrote: > Why can't we simply have the option to turn up (or turn down!) the > resolution of the objects we already have? This is considerably less > complex. > ~Brandon > > > On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >> It could be, it's just a matter of someone writing the code :) >> That's why I proposed the 'cleansound' library. >> >> .hc >> >> On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:01 PM, bsoisoi wrote: >> >>> Well, why couldn't Pd be as "clean", processors are fast enough these >>> days, and one could always crank up the sample rates of their DSP >>> blocks. Isn't the internal resolution at least 32bit anyway (is it >>> 64bit under any circumstances?) >>> >>> cheers, >>> ~brandon >>> >>> >>> On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote: >>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank Barknecht wrote: >> Hallo, >> Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote: >> >>> Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's >>> comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to >>> Pd, both >>> are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one >>> sparkles while >>> the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. >> Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles. > so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? > marius. Because it's optimised for real-time performance. Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was designed for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU speeds. Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a raytracing scene in 3DMax. In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we could say "what did you expect?!" > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Use the source ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >>> >>> ___ >>> PD-list@iem.at mailing list >>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> >> >> >> >> "[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are >> deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from >> scarcity."-John Gilmore >> >> > > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Most Pd objects (externals) use t_sample to define what gets passed to input and output. At compilation time, the externals code includes m_pd.h, which defines t_sample as a float. Which makes sense on 32-bit processors--Pd for 64-bit processors could potentially redefine t_sample as a double, with no loss in performance (with nearly twice as much memory usage). I am aware that there are some other problems involved with making Pd accessible as either 32-bit or 64-bit resolution, but I'm not so deep into the source code to tell you what they all are. Chuck On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Brandon Zeeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why can't we simply have the option to turn up (or turn down!) the > resolution of the objects we already have? This is considerably less > complex. > ~Brandon > > > On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > > > > It could be, it's just a matter of someone writing the code :) > > That's why I proposed the 'cleansound' library. > > > > .hc > > > > On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:01 PM, bsoisoi wrote: > > > >> Well, why couldn't Pd be as "clean", processors are fast enough these > >> days, and one could always crank up the sample rates of their DSP > >> blocks. Isn't the internal resolution at least 32bit anyway (is it > >> 64bit under any circumstances?) > >> > >> cheers, > >> ~brandon > >> > >> > >> On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote: > >> > >>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 > >>> marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > Frank Barknecht wrote: > > Hallo, > > Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote: > > > >> Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's > >> comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to > >> Pd, both > >> are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one > >> sparkles while > >> the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. > > > > Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles. > > so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? > marius. > >>> > >>> > >>> Because it's optimised for real-time performance. > >>> > >>> Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. > >>> The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was > >>> designed > >>> for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU > >>> speeds. > >>> > >>> Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a > >>> raytracing > >>> scene in 3DMax. > >>> > >>> In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we > >>> could > >>> say "what did you expect?!" > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Use the source > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> PD-list@iem.at mailing list > >>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> PD-list@iem.at mailing list > >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > "[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are > > deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from > > scarcity."-John Gilmore > > > > > > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Brandon Zeeb wrote: > Why can't we simply have the option to turn up (or turn down!) the > resolution of the objects we already have? This is considerably less > complex. yes, from a users point of view. from a programmers point of view it is considerably more complex. fmadsrö IOhannes ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > It could be, it's just a matter of someone writing the code :) well, it's almost done. within the next month or 2, i will hopefully have all patches ready, to make Pd fully "double floating point" enabled (that is: you have to chose at compile time; all externals have to be recompiled for this; and no, i have no plans to get a dual-precision (both 32bit and 64bit) support into Pd) what is more, just raising the precision won't necessarily boost the cleanness of the sound (btw, this is not the objective of my double Pd project); Pd could have better oscillators even with 32bit, by using better interpolation/extrapolation algorithms. mfga.dsr IOhannes ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Charles Henry wrote: > Most Pd objects (externals) use t_sample to define what gets passed to > input and output. At compilation time, the externals code includes > m_pd.h, which defines t_sample as a float. Which makes sense on 32-bit > processors--Pd for 64-bit processors could potentially redefine t_sample > as a double, with no loss in performance (with nearly twice as much > memory usage). that's the theory. in practice, even Pd-vanilla was using a wild mix of t_sample, t_float & float as sample-type until 0.41 (when i submitted a number of patches to clean that up) i have a basically running version of Pd with 64bit double precision, basically only some oscillators have to be ported (osc~, phasor~,... use lowest level bitmanipulation in their core-routines) playing soundfiles works fine :-) fgmadsr IOhannes ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Martin Peach wrote: > It would be interesting to try to build pd using doubles instead of > floats, but it would necessitate changing the size of atoms... see my other post: this is basically done. on 64bit OS the size of atoms would stay the same (it's at least 64bit because of the pointers) fgadsmr, IOhannes ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 21:05 +0100, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > Pd could have better oscillators even with 32bit, by using better > interpolation/extrapolation algorithms. yo.. would be interesting to hear (for non-dsp experts as me), _what_ could be improved, respectively _what_ is _not_ optimal in pd. could you (or someone else) elaborate that a bit? are you saying, that [osc~] is not generating a clean sine wave? what would you expect from a [phasor~] differently from what it currently does? what kind of algorithms are you talking about? what are they supposed to improve? roman ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
[osc~] seems to use a 512-float table with linear interpolation, so it could be made better by increasing the size and/or resolution of the table and/or using a better interpolation algorithm. Martin Roman Haefeli wrote: > On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 21:05 +0100, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > >> Pd could have better oscillators even with 32bit, by using better >> interpolation/extrapolation algorithms. > > yo.. would be interesting to hear (for non-dsp experts as me), _what_ > could be improved, respectively _what_ is _not_ optimal in pd. could you > (or someone else) elaborate that a bit? are you saying, that [osc~] is > not generating a clean sine wave? what would you expect from a [phasor~] > differently from what it currently does? what kind of algorithms are you > talking about? what are they supposed to improve? > > roman > > > > > > > ___ > Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de > > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Sunday 09 March 2008 19:59, Charles Henry wrote: > Pd for 64-bit processors could potentially redefine t_sample as > a double, with no loss in performance (with nearly twice as much memory > usage). Mno... It just so happens that x87s always compute a double, so it makes little difference there. What you're forgetting is that if you're using SIMD (for example SSE2) using doubles means you can only fit two samples into a vector register instead of four. Half the throughput. On top of that, if you check instruction tables, packed double instructions have a slightly higher latency than packed singles. For the core2 at least. Not everything (even 64bit) uses an x87. robert. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Hi, I always blamed the sound card and/or headphones, as I have only done this test on a laptop with a shitty integrated soundcard (and I usually don't work with synthesis, nor with such refined processing to require to care too much about subtleties)... but now I doubt. The attached patch is simply an osc *~ed by a number and connected to the dac i.e.: [osc~ 500] | [*~ 0.05] |\ [dac~] with a slider ranging from 0 to 0.1 connected to the right inlet of the *~. Now, to my ear the sinusoid sounds ridiculously distorted, with really very very audible harmonics. Especially if I lower the amplitude to a value below 0.03, which is still enough "loud" to be heared clearly. As I move the slider up and down I can distinctly hear how the harmonic spectrum changes (apart from the obvious clicks in the moment you move the slider). As I mentioned, I always thought it was the hardware, since I can't believe such an enormous distortion is the normal expected one due to 32 bit float precision... Or is this the result of the issues that have been mentioned in this thread (table size, linear interpolation)??? -- Matteo Sisti Sette [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.matteosistisette.com #N canvas 346 288 560 385 12; #X obj 156 237 dac~; #X obj 102 99 osc~ 500; #X obj 245 49 vsl 15 128 0 0.1 0 0 empty empty empty 0 -9 0 10 -262144 -1 -1 2300 1; #X obj 142 170 *~ 0.05; #X floatatom 265 204 5 0 0 0 - - -; #X obj 251 286 tabwrite~ xxx; #X obj 316 72 table xxx 64; #X obj 253 251 bng 15 250 50 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1 -1; #X connect 1 0 3 0; #X connect 2 0 3 1; #X connect 2 0 4 0; #X connect 3 0 0 0; #X connect 3 0 0 1; #X connect 3 0 5 0; #X connect 7 0 5 0; ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 11:38 +0100, matteo sisti sette wrote: > Hi, > > I always blamed the sound card and/or headphones, as I have only done > this test on a laptop with a shitty integrated soundcard (and I > usually don't work with synthesis, nor with such refined processing to > require to care too much about subtleties)... but now I doubt. > > The attached patch is simply an osc *~ed by a number and connected to > the dac i.e.: > > [osc~ 500] > | > [*~ 0.05] > |\ > [dac~] > > with a slider ranging from 0 to 0.1 connected to the right inlet of the *~. > > Now, to my ear the sinusoid sounds ridiculously distorted, with really > very very audible harmonics. > Especially if I lower the amplitude to a value below 0.03, which is > still enough "loud" to be heared clearly. As I move the slider up and > down I can distinctly hear how the harmonic spectrum changes (apart > from the obvious clicks in the moment you move the slider). > > As I mentioned, I always thought it was the hardware, since I can't > believe such an enormous distortion is the normal expected one due to > 32 bit float precision... > > Or is this the result of the issues that have been mentioned in this > thread (table size, linear interpolation)??? i would assume, that you _are_ triggering a hardware issue. your description sounds like your hardware is running with 16 bit depth. at some point 32float values are converted to the resolution of the hardware. in case your hardware really is running only 16bit, then it is very likely that you hear some artefacts on those very low levels. what you hear then is the quantization error, which is quite perceivable at 16bit, not so much anymore with 24bit. unless you hardware is running at 24bit (or higher, if that exists), it is not pd's fault. roman ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
> i would assume, that you _are_ triggering a hardware issue. your > description sounds like your hardware is running with 16 bit depth. at > some point 32float values are converted to the resolution of the > hardware. in case your hardware really is running only 16bit, then it is > very likely that you hear some artefacts on those very low levels. what > you hear then is the quantization error, which is quite perceivable at > 16bit, Oh yes of course! :$:$ You're definitely right. With so much talk about float precision in the cpu and interpolation and stuff, I forgot about the final quantization of the soundcard :$:$ I didn't know it was _that_ audible at 16 bit however. -- Matteo Sisti Sette [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.matteosistisette.com ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Tube amps sounds better because the electron flow into the tube always make a kind of interpolation when the signal comes to distortion. Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit : > To muddy the waters a bit, the most 'correct' sound isn't always the > best sound. Consider so many people's love of tube amps. They have > higher distorsion than transistor amps, yet so many people think they > sound better. > > .hc > > > > > All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, > one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better > language; and every chapter must be so translated -John Donne > > > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max?
Hi Roman, all, Here's discussion that caught my eye some while back http://www.devmaster.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5784 There's been several good posts on music-dsp and dsp-related.com over the years dealing with both sides, high accuracy and high effciciency. In the end, of course, it's a trade off. Andy On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:39:54 +0100 Roman Haefeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2008-03-08 at 21:25 +, Andy Farnell wrote: > > On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 > > marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Frank Barknecht wrote: > > > > Hallo, > > > > Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote: > > > > > > > >> Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's > > > >> comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, > > > >> both > > > >> are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles > > > >> while > > > >> the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. > > > > > > > > Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles. > > > > > > so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? > > > marius. > > > > > > Because it's optimised for real-time performance. > > > > Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. > > The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was designed > > for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU speeds. > > sounds reasonable. however, i would be interested to have some > illustration of that. what is it, that makes the difference? i'd be most > interested to see examples on a rather low level (oscillators, ramp > generators etc). the code for both is open, so it should be feasible to > find some differences, if there are any. > > basically, this means also, that it is not possible to generate any > intended signal with pd. is that true? > > roman > > > > > > > ___ > Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: > http://mail.yahoo.de > -- Use the source ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
