Hello Bill, Oops, not intending to be so selective in my quoting. . . the below quote just jumped out at me.
So would you suggest the Snd route as the modern way forward? Just a quick glance at the Snd pages, the option of using Ruby looks somewhat more approachable for the lisp clueless. I suppose if I have a go with the docs I can work out how to use Snd as a batchable Music V engine? So you're suggesting this path rather than the clm-3? Thanks, Jo -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Bill Schottstaedt Sent: Fri 05/25/2007 1:18 PM To: Joseph Anderson; [email protected] Cc: Subject: Re: [CM] Newbie learning. . . . CM / CLM-3 / SND / Scheme??? > interpreted Scheme (as in Snd currently) is about 30 to 100 times > slower than CLM instruments using the run macro. Geez, it's the week for selective quoting -- the very next sentence explains that the run macro exists now in Snd, and the difference in compute time is more like a factor of 4 -- even that strikes me as high -- I'll have to re-run some of my timing tests to see how close it is. I'll rewrite that paragraph. I think Snd is easier to use than the CL versions of clm. I don't have an extended tutorial for clm -- one is badly needed. There are lots of example instruments and note lists, and sndscm.html has individual discussions of each of the clm instruments in Snd (clm-ins for example). _______________________________________________ Cmdist mailing list [email protected] http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist
***************************************************************************************** To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *****************************************************************************************
