Re: [PD] Click Tracker - Version 2.3 is out!
Hi, Joao. Thanks for your response. On 3/12/22 2:02 AM, João Pais wrote: Hi Dudley. I spent more than 10 years working on this, basically giving it away for musicians who want to use it, and at no profit for me. I would like at some point to be able to get some return on the time, and it seems to me that the only option is to try to protect the source code. I guess I should have suspected that it was for protection. Hindsight is golden ... especially now that I've been *told* the answer! ;^) But at the time I thought it was some glitch ... until a new version came out that was still scrambled, which just confused me. Regarding your comments: - the objects were "entagled" with jmmmp/jp.garble - I "might" have added some hundreds of non-useful objects to some subpatches just to annoy anyone who tries to clean it up I'll ratchet "annoy" down to merely "mystify". ;^) - none of these are failsafe, but I only know how to program in Pd, so it's the only protection I could think of. Yeah, not failsafe, unfortunately, since I did manage to completely untangle it. My apologies that I was unintentionally violating your desire for protection. I have been OCD about untangling things, ever since I first learned to program, in Basic, and was dismayed by "spaghetti code". (In fact, ever since I was a kid and my father showed me how to untangle a rope and I got mad because I hadn't figured it out myself.) I started (or attempted) to write a program that would rewrite any Basic program de-spaghettified ... and decided that (1) it was beyond my programming ability; and (2) it was pointless anyway -- better to just use languages that didn't allow spaghetti. Pd does allow spaghetti -- practically encourages it in fact! (Not the obfuscation you used; just the typical Pd program with connections going every which way -- *almost literal* spaghetti!. But Pd is so useful that I still want to learn it. Anyway, far from my original desire to see how the program worked, I became obsessed merely with the desire to see if I *could* untangle it! I'm sorry. If you're interested in how the Click Tracker works etc., I would suggest to have a look at the paper I presented some years ago https://www.uni-weimar.de/kunst-und-gestaltung/wiki/PDCON:Conference/Click_Tracker:_Performance/composition_tool_for_metrically_complex_scores - most of it is still current. Thanks. I will take a look. Or to ask me directly. I doubt I will send you the original patch, but I can answer questions in text. Thanks. Not necessary at the moment, but thanks for the offer. I should clarify that I look at other people's programs not to learn how the *particular* program solves the *particular* problem but just to learn programming practices in general. And thanks for all the work you put into an amazing program! I hope you will get donations to reward you for that work. (I'm not financially able to donate to *anything* ... senior citizen on a fixed income ... but I would if I could.) Dudley Best, Joao May I ask please: If you look at the various pd objects in ClickTracker using CTL-E, why are most of the objects all slammed together in one corner (and consequently all the wires "tangled")? I like to examine other people's Pd programs to learn more about programming in Pd ... so I once spent two full days completely untangling ClickTracker. And I discovered this in the main part of the program: [+ 1] | [+ 3] | [+ 5] | [+ 1] | [+ 3] | [+ 5] . . . [+ 1] | [+ 3] | [+ 5] Or something lack that, with something like 195 objects (I forget how many) ... and with nothing connected to the first input, and the last output not connecting to anything. What is that about? Thanks. I apologize. I'm not at all complaining -- it's a great program! But I'm just totally mystified about why the insides of the program look like this. On 3/11/22 3:17 AM, João Pais wrote: Dear list, Version 2.3 of the Click Tracker is out. This version was generously supported by the Quatuor Bozzini (https://www.quatuorbozzini.ca/), and reflects mainly improvements gained from the perspective of the users. The new features are divided into 3 categories: Syntax features: - added meters with mixed denominators - added "x Y" command to repeat inputed events - added fermatas GUI features: - new GUI layout - removed "record" button - added reset button for pickup bar GUI features for the application and Max patch: - added file drop to open a score - change the window size to scale the contents - added new control keys g l t u, also combined with shift for reset As in the previous version, you can use in any of the following ways: - as an android app (https://bit.ly/click-tracker-mob or https://bit.ly/clicktracker-playstore) - as a closed desktop app in windows (http://bit.ly/ClickTracker2-3Win) or apple (http://bit.ly/ClickTracker2-3Apple) Due to Apple's recen
Re: [PD] Click Tracker - Version 2.3 is out!
May I ask please: If you look at the various pd objects in ClickTracker using CTL-E, why are most of the objects all slammed together in one corner (and consequently all the wires "tangled")? I like to examine other people's Pd programs to learn more about programming in Pd ... so I once spent two full days completely untangling ClickTracker. And I discovered this in the main part of the program: [+ 1] | [+ 3] | [+ 5] | [+ 1] | [+ 3] | [+ 5] . . . [+ 1] | [+ 3] | [+ 5] Or something lack that, with something like 195 objects (I forget how many) ... and with nothing connected to the first input, and the last output not connecting to anything. What is that about? Thanks. I apologize. I'm not at all complaining -- it's a great program! But I'm just totally mystified about why the insides of the program look like this. On 3/11/22 3:17 AM, João Pais wrote: Dear list, Version 2.3 of the Click Tracker is out. This version was generously supported by the Quatuor Bozzini (https://www.quatuorbozzini.ca/), and reflects mainly improvements gained from the perspective of the users. The new features are divided into 3 categories: Syntax features: - added meters with mixed denominators - added "x Y" command to repeat inputed events - added fermatas GUI features: - new GUI layout - removed "record" button - added reset button for pickup bar GUI features for the application and Max patch: - added file drop to open a score - change the window size to scale the contents - added new control keys g l t u, also combined with shift for reset As in the previous version, you can use in any of the following ways: - as an android app (https://bit.ly/click-tracker-mob or https://bit.ly/clicktracker-playstore) - as a closed desktop app in windows (http://bit.ly/ClickTracker2-3Win) or apple (http://bit.ly/ClickTracker2-3Apple) Due to Apple's recent security settings, you'll need to allow the Pd and other externals to run on your system. WARNING: M1 users will need to run the program with Rosetta. - as the traditional Pure Data patch (https://bit.ly/ClickTracker2-3) - as a Max/MSP patch in windows (http://bit.ly/ClickTracker2-3MaxWin) or apple (http://bit.ly/ClickTracker2-3MaxApple) For more information, refer to the Click Tracker's website at http://j.mp/click-tracker. You can also visit the Click Tracker on facebook - http://j.mp/clicktrackerfb, or check out the click track library in http://jmmmp.github.io/clicktracker/index-library. With best regards, João Pais -- Click Tracker Mobile -https://bit.ly/click-tracker-mob Click Tracker Website -http://j.mp/click-tracker Click Tracker Library -https://bit.ly/ClickTrackerLibrary Facebook -http://j.mp/clicktrackerfb ___ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Click Tracker - Version 2.2 is out!
On 1/21/22 6:43 AM, João Pais wrote: Hi -- - as the traditional Pure Data patch (http://bit.ly/clicktrackerv2-2) This gives a 404 error. But the link to it from their website works: For more information, refer to the Click Tracker's website at http://j.mp/click-tracker. Thanks! -- Dudley Brooks, Artistic Director Run For Your Life! ... it's a dance company! San Francisco ___ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] Several questions about Gem and Pd vanilla (Mac OS X 10.13)
Many of the answers I find online are not dated, so I'm not sure what the most recent info is. (1) Is there an information source which is guaranteed to be the most up-to-date for Pd, and similarly for Gem? (2) Is it true that Gem will only work with 32-bit versions of Pd? Or is that a now-outdated version of Gem? (3) What settings do I use to make sure that Gem is found by any Pd patch opened by clicking on it or by clicking on the Pd app and then opening the patch from Pd? or (4) If I don't do (3), what do I include in a Pd patch to make sure the patch loads Gem? Thanks. Newbie to Gem, still somewhat newbie to Pd. ___ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] 8 channel circle panner, how?
On 9/12/19 6:35 AM, Winfried Ritsch wrote: Am Mittwoch, 11. September 2019, 01:01:01 CEST schrieb Dudley Brooks: A quick question, of purely academic interest: In theory, wouldn't it be possible to get 3D spatialization with just four speakers arranged in, say, the corners of a tetrahedron, such as one directly above and three in an equilateral triangle below the listener's "horizon" (i.e. the plane of the listener's ears)? I'm sure that six speakers would be preferable -- maybe fewer "dead spots"? But, strictly speaking, four could do it, right? yes, ... done 1951 with pupitre d'espace, even with 3D-Soundcontroller, the function of controlling a weigthed Amplification matrix like done in Ambisonics, so you can use it as Ambisonics 1st order,.. ;-). see https://books.google.at/books? id=psKyCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=pupitre+de+espace#v=onepage&q&f=false mfg winfried Thank you, Winfried! I was sure it was possible. Mathematically, four non-coplanar points allow you to define three axes which span 3D space. The tetrahedral placement I described gives you one speaker above your ears and three below, so that up and down are defined; one in front (and below) and two behind (and below), so that front and back are defined; and one left (and behind and below) and one right (and behind and below), so that right and left are defined. Thus any (x,y,z) can be specified, and Ambisonics can translate any (x,y,z) into this speaker placement. Perhaps there are "dead spots" because of the shape of the coverage of the individual speakers. I don't know anything about that aspect of the problem. -- Dudley On 9/10/19 12:39 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote: On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 14:43 -0300, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: Em ter, 10 de set de 2019 às 06:15, Roman Haefeli escreveu: For true spatialization what is "true spatialization"? I mean true spatialization as opposed to simple panning. You asked for a panner and you were given a panner. Then you said you were thinking of a more sophisticated panner. And I said what you want might be spatialization that not only emulates a sound source traveling along a virtual circle, but that is able to emulate also every position in between. Sounds to me like true spatialization. But I'm only guessing. I can't read your mind, don't know what you really want. I can only read you mails. Only apt has super-cow powers. And why would else/pan4~ not be "truthful"? Did I say it is not "truthful"? I'm sure it's a very true panner. It's even 2D (it positions the sound source anywhere between the speakers, not only on the outlines). Now, isn't that exactly what you want, but only with four channels? I'm confused now. - it sounds to me that is what you're aiming at - use Ambisonics[1]. hmm, I don't really know, and here's a silly question. It seems to me ambisonics tries to locate a sound source in a 3D sphere, but the idea would actually be to pan the sound source in a 2D circle space. It's a totally fine question. I'm not an expert either. Ambisonics is able to render in 3D, but you can also do 2D (for instance, if you place all speakers on the same plane). What I understand is special about Ambisonics, is that you do not need to know beforehand for which speaker setup you're making a recording or a rendering for. Only the decoder needs to know the exact configuration of the speakers. This allows for setups that are not a perfect circle or sphere. So, can ambisonics help there or is it overcomplicated for that matter? And how is it possible with 8 speakers to simulate a 3D sphere? Again, not an expert speaking here, but depending on your goals you need that complexity. If your speaker setup is for some reason not a perfect circle, or the positions are not evenly spaced, the image of your virtual sound source(s) is distorted. If you want to account for that, it's probably easier to use Ambisonics than figuring out all the calculations on your own. Do you care for a good reproduction of spatial image? Do you need the flexibility that Ambisoncis gives you? Do you want re-invent things each time the setup is different? Would like to be able to switch between 2D and 3D with the same system? Do you want your piece to be played "correctly" at some other venue that is not the studio where you worked on your piece? I'm not saying you want all that. I'm just thinking that the more you deal with the stuff, the more those aspect are going to matter. There seem to be Pd externals for this. yeah, I know, just not sure if all the complicated encoding and everything is indispensable and stuff I don't know. I'm not sure if what you want is different from [else/pan4~], but with 8 channels... Roman ___ Pd-
Re: [PD] 8 channel circle panner, how?
A quick question, of purely academic interest: In theory, wouldn't it be possible to get 3D spatialization with just four speakers arranged in, say, the corners of a tetrahedron, such as one directly above and three in an equilateral triangle below the listener's "horizon" (i.e. the plane of the listener's ears)? I'm sure that eight speakers would be preferable -- maybe fewer "dead spots"? But, strictly speaking, four could do it, right? On 9/10/19 12:39 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote: On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 14:43 -0300, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: Em ter, 10 de set de 2019 às 06:15, Roman Haefeli escreveu: For true spatialization what is "true spatialization"? I mean true spatialization as opposed to simple panning. You asked for a panner and you were given a panner. Then you said you were thinking of a more sophisticated panner. And I said what you want might be spatialization that not only emulates a sound source traveling along a virtual circle, but that is able to emulate also every position in between. Sounds to me like true spatialization. But I'm only guessing. I can't read your mind, don't know what you really want. I can only read you mails. Only apt has super-cow powers. And why would else/pan4~ not be "truthful"? Did I say it is not "truthful"? I'm sure it's a very true panner. It's even 2D (it positions the sound source anywhere between the speakers, not only on the outlines). Now, isn't that exactly what you want, but only with four channels? I'm confused now. - it sounds to me that is what you're aiming at - use Ambisonics[1]. hmm, I don't really know, and here's a silly question. It seems to me ambisonics tries to locate a sound source in a 3D sphere, but the idea would actually be to pan the sound source in a 2D circle space. It's a totally fine question. I'm not an expert either. Ambisonics is able to render in 3D, but you can also do 2D (for instance, if you place all speakers on the same plane). What I understand is special about Ambisonics, is that you do not need to know beforehand for which speaker setup you're making a recording or a rendering for. Only the decoder needs to know the exact configuration of the speakers. This allows for setups that are not a perfect circle or sphere. So, can ambisonics help there or is it overcomplicated for that matter? And how is it possible with 8 speakers to simulate a 3D sphere? Again, not an expert speaking here, but depending on your goals you need that complexity. If your speaker setup is for some reason not a perfect circle, or the positions are not evenly spaced, the image of your virtual sound source(s) is distorted. If you want to account for that, it's probably easier to use Ambisonics than figuring out all the calculations on your own. Do you care for a good reproduction of spatial image? Do you need the flexibility that Ambisoncis gives you? Do you want re-invent things each time the setup is different? Would like to be able to switch between 2D and 3D with the same system? Do you want your piece to be played "correctly" at some other venue that is not the studio where you worked on your piece? I'm not saying you want all that. I'm just thinking that the more you deal with the stuff, the more those aspect are going to matter. There seem to be Pd externals for this. yeah, I know, just not sure if all the complicated encoding and everything is indispensable and stuff I don't know. I'm not sure if what you want is different from [else/pan4~], but with 8 channels... Roman ___ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
