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 +0000 > >> From: Damian Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max? > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Cc: PD-List <[email protected]> > >> 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 > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] mailing list > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > -- Libero Mureddu Vanha Viertotie, 21 as 417 00350 Helsinki Finland http://webusers.siba.fi/~limuredd/ http://www.myspace.com/liberomureddu -- Libero Mureddu Vanha Viertotie, 21 as 417 00350 Helsinki Finland http://webusers.siba.fi/~limuredd/ http://www.myspace.com/liberomureddu _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
