On 3/17/07, padawan12 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:06:37 -0400 > "Chuckk Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What what was? The Csound opcode? > > No the book on stats for music applications.
Alas, it is merely a probability textbook with a little more detail than the one we're using in class; it isn't geared towards music. > > I do think of it as overkill for synthesis purposes, but people use > > Csound for lots of other purposes. I guess for algorithmic > > composition that kind of specificity is indispensible. > > I'd argue for its audio precision, but then it's not realtime (by design) > in the same way that Pd is. Not sure what control stuff you could do in > csound that you couldn't in Pd (?) Never really loved the score<->orchestra > dichotomy either, without that wall to negotiate I think you have more > freedom in instrument design and in generation. I love Csound for a bunch of reasons. The score format is definitely not one of them. The csoundapi~ Pd object is awesome, though, and now supports multiple instances. At the moment, I'm working with a 4-movement "microtonal" sonata I wrote with my Pd JIsequencer and translated to a Csound score. I find it much easier to control synthesis and production with Csound. I think just because it has higher-level stuff. It's also older and has more contributors. But I bet for most people the bottom line is whether they prefer to work with text or graphics. I like both. I'm not sure why, but it seems like the Csound and Pd camps are almost mutually exclusive. -Chuckk -- http://www.badmuthahubbard.com _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
