Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:59 +0200, martin brinkmann wrote:
> Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > you can find the major7.pd patch and its depencencies here:
> > http://www.romanhaefeli.net/software/pd/
> 
> i could not find major7.pd there,

sorry, here it is:
http://www.romanhaefeli.net/software/pd/major7.pd

roman


___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[martin brinkmann]

Roman Haefeli wrote:
> you can find the major7.pd patch and its depencencies here:
> http://www.romanhaefeli.net/software/pd/

i could not find major7.pd there, but i have tried the
bandlimited_oscilators (sinesum), which sounded quite a lot
better/smoother than other methods for making
bandlimited waveforms in pd. i will try to make
some pad-synths with these.

> couldn't find that particular track on:
> http://noconventions.mobi/nvisible.taz/

some other ones are also very good, but that one was my favourite.
looks like it is gone. i could send it to you by mail if you
like, or put it (temporarly) on my site. or maybe the author
of this music is also reading this list?

bis denn!
martin

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Lorenzo]

Well I must give a +1 to all the members of this list for being so 
civil, constructive, polite and friendly.

The answers one usually get to that kind of subject are much less friendly.

Who wants smooth, curvy, creamy, glossy, mild, silky audio anyway?
Happy - rough - Pd to all :)

PS: I guess no one has done any blind tests using only ear right?
There's a nice episode reported in Michelangelo's life shown in one of 
the films about him - not sure exactly how it went but here goes: the 
master is working at one of his masterpieces (probably the David or 
something) and some dude comes along, well actually he's on the side of 
the patrons an so although he's pretty daft, he's also paying for the 
thing and wants to put his word into it. He says "Hey Michelangelo, you 
idiot, that nose is too big!" Michelangelo counts up to ten then smiles 
and answers humbly: "Oh yes Sir, thank you. I guess I should make it 
smaller" so he takes his hammer and bangs hard on the wall two or three 
times and lets some powder drop down, without actually touching the 
nose, then pulls back. "What do you think now Sir?" "Ah" says the guy 
full of himself "perfect, /now/ it is perfect".
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[cyrille henry]

Claude Heiland-Allen a écrit :

cyrille henry wrote:



Claude Heiland-Allen a écrit :

Alexandre Porres wrote:

"I feel Max produce a smoother audio than Pd. Didit"


Well, if you use [tabread4~] or any of the many other Pd objects that 
use the same broken interpolation algorithm (copy/paste programming), 
you get horrible noise.  If you use [tabread4] to interpolate 
graphical parameters for animations, the discontinuities in the 
derivatives are really obvious.


See attached patch - it would be interesting to see if a Max/MSP port 
of this patch exhibits the same problem.


well, the cos~ object does not internally use a 4 points interpolation.
see code : *out++ = f1 + frac * (f2 - f1);
it's a 2 points linear interpolation.


Oops!  Sorry for making assumptions and not checking the source :-/

nusmuk audio tabread4c~ uses the correct interpolation algorithm, 
correct me if I'm wrong.

i don't think there is a correct interpolation algorythm.


True - it depends on the purpose.

But IMHO if you're doing piecewise cubic interpolation, it's a bit of a 
nonsense to have a cubic that goes through all 4 points when it's only 
being used between the inner-most 2 points (a new cubic equation is 
calculated each time you go past another sample in the table).

i think the interpolation used by miller is the one that minimise the error.
other interpolating methods could have more error, but sound better.




I heard that software like reaktor use very diferent algorythm, with 
lot's more points, in order to have a band limited interpolation.


Interesting. Maybe some kind of FFT-based interpolation could be used?

it's more something using sinc to instead of dirac to reconstruct the signal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinc
Cyrille




Claude


___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Claude Heiland-Allen]

cyrille henry wrote:



Claude Heiland-Allen a écrit :

Alexandre Porres wrote:

"I feel Max produce a smoother audio than Pd. Didit"


Well, if you use [tabread4~] or any of the many other Pd objects that 
use the same broken interpolation algorithm (copy/paste programming), 
you get horrible noise.  If you use [tabread4] to interpolate 
graphical parameters for animations, the discontinuities in the 
derivatives are really obvious.


See attached patch - it would be interesting to see if a Max/MSP port 
of this patch exhibits the same problem.


well, the cos~ object does not internally use a 4 points interpolation.
see code : *out++ = f1 + frac * (f2 - f1);
it's a 2 points linear interpolation.


Oops!  Sorry for making assumptions and not checking the source :-/

nusmuk audio tabread4c~ uses the correct interpolation algorithm, 
correct me if I'm wrong.

i don't think there is a correct interpolation algorythm.


True - it depends on the purpose.

But IMHO if you're doing piecewise cubic interpolation, it's a bit of a 
nonsense to have a cubic that goes through all 4 points when it's only 
being used between the inner-most 2 points (a new cubic equation is 
calculated each time you go past another sample in the table).


I heard that software like reaktor use very diferent algorythm, with 
lot's more points, in order to have a band limited interpolation.


Interesting. Maybe some kind of FFT-based interpolation could be used?


Claude
--
http://claudiusmaximus.goto10.org

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[cyrille henry]

Claude Heiland-Allen a écrit :

Alexandre Porres wrote:

"I feel Max produce a smoother audio than Pd. Didit"


Well, if you use [tabread4~] or any of the many other Pd objects that 
use the same broken interpolation algorithm (copy/paste programming), 
you get horrible noise.  If you use [tabread4] to interpolate graphical 
parameters for animations, the discontinuities in the derivatives are 
really obvious.


See attached patch - it would be interesting to see if a Max/MSP port of 
this patch exhibits the same problem.


well, the cos~ object does not internally use a 4 points interpolation.
see code : 
*out++ = f1 + frac * (f2 - f1);

it's a 2 points linear interpolation.




nusmuk audio tabread4c~ uses the correct interpolation algorithm, 
correct me if I'm wrong.

i don't think there is a correct interpolation algorythm.
I heard that software like reaktor use very diferent algorythm, with lot's more 
points, in order to have a band limited interpolation.

cyrille



See also this long discussion:
http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2008-06/062878.html


Claude




___
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] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Matt Barber]

>
> Alexandre Porres wrote:
>> "I feel Max produce a smoother audio than Pd. Didit"
>
> Well, if you use [tabread4~] or any of the many other Pd objects that
> use the same broken interpolation algorithm (copy/paste programming),
> you get horrible noise.  If you use [tabread4] to interpolate graphical
> parameters for animations, the discontinuities in the derivatives are
> really obvious.

Pd's cubic interpolator is a standard one (not the only standard one)
-- it's the same Lagrange interpolator as the one used in csound.
[tabread4c~] or whatever it is was an attempt to bring in the one used
in supercollider, which is an Hermite cubic interpolator.  I haven't
tried to figure out what max uses, but it wouldn't be too hard.

Matt

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Frank Barknecht]

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 02:05:01PM +0200, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
> Frank wrote:
> > If you use a [phasor~] as a sawtooth oscillator source,
> > you're "wrong" in both Max and Pd.
...
> (ohhh, I see maybe: it is because of aliasing isn't it? indeed I always  
> wondered: how do you simulate a sawtooth oscillator and avoid aliasing  
> [without a huge oversampling and filtering]?)

Indeed, it's mainly about the aliasing, and also a bit about some other
things like making your oscillators more interesting by modulating 
phase or frequency and changing their harmonic contents.

But for anti-aliasing, the rj library includes several oscillators that apply
the "Transition Splicing" principle explained in Miller's book. It's a cheap
way both in memory and CPU to get phat squares and saws. The rj-versions even
are a bit cheaper as the examples in the docs because they only use [tabread~]
instead of [tabread4~] at the transitions. rj is geared towards mobile devices
with slower CPUs. For even better sounding oscillators, check Cyrille's
versions. 

I support Max Mathews' recommendation of reading "The Theory and Technique of
Electronic Music" once you're past the initial learning curve of Pd. It's an
invaluable ressource for making nice sounding things (not only) in Pd. 

Ciao
-- 
 Frank BarknechtDo You RjDj.me?  _ __footils.org__

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Claude Heiland-Allen]

Alexandre Porres wrote:

"I feel Max produce a smoother audio than Pd. Didit"


Well, if you use [tabread4~] or any of the many other Pd objects that 
use the same broken interpolation algorithm (copy/paste programming), 
you get horrible noise.  If you use [tabread4] to interpolate graphical 
parameters for animations, the discontinuities in the derivatives are 
really obvious.


See attached patch - it would be interesting to see if a Max/MSP port of 
this patch exhibits the same problem.


nusmuk audio tabread4c~ uses the correct interpolation algorithm, 
correct me if I'm wrong.


See also this long discussion:
http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2008-06/062878.html


Claude
--
http://claudiusmaximus.goto10.org
#N canvas 0 0 699 665 10;
#X obj 163 97 cos~;
#X obj 197 123 expr~ cos($v1*3.14159265359*2.0);
#X obj 163 147 -~;
#N canvas 0 0 450 300 (subpatch) 0;
#X array \$0-brokenness 4096 float 2;
#X coords 0 1 4096 -1 600 128 1;
#X restore 44 333 graph;
#X obj 77 195 tabwrite~ \$0-brokenness;
#X obj 77 74 bng 15 250 50 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1
-1;
#X obj 46 145 metro 1000;
#X obj 46 74 tgl 15 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1 -1 1 1
;
#X obj 162 171 *~ 25000;
#X text 405 122 <--- pure sine wave;
#X text 209 97 <--- cos~ uses [tabread4~ costab] internally \, impure
;
#X text 298 61 <--- same phase source for comparison;
#X obj 196 60 phasor~ 100.01;
#X text 259 187 [tabread4~] uses a broken 4-point interpolation algorithm
\, different to the standard 2-point/2-slope cubic algorithm known
to be correct for centuries \; it is nonsensical to have a piece-wise
cubic that goes through all 4 points \, when that piece is only used
between the innermost 2 points \; continuity of slope at the switching
points between the pieces of cubics is broken in [tabread4~] \, leading
to lack of smoothness \; if [tabread4~] was good enough \, the array
would flatline;
#X text 209 150 <--- spot the difference \, horrible distortion (-48dB)
;
#X text 39 18 [tabread4~] interpolation is wrong;
#N canvas 0 0 450 300 (subpatch) 0;
#X array \$0-spectrum 2048 float 2;
#X coords 0 1 2048 0 600 128 1;
#X restore 44 486 graph;
#N canvas 270 88 565 387 \$0-fft 0;
#X obj 15 25 block~ 4096 4 1;
#X obj 130 60 inlet~;
#X obj 131 150 rfft~;
#X obj 124 184 *~;
#X obj 150 185 *~;
#X obj 128 212 +~;
#X obj 126 293 tabwrite~ \$0-spectrum;
#X obj 43 62 inlet;
#X obj 130 106 *~;
#X obj 156 25 table \$0-window 4096;
#X obj 146 83 tabreceive~ \$0-window;
#X obj 317 28 loadbang;
#X obj 317 55 f 4096;
#X obj 317 81 until;
#X obj 317 116 f 0;
#X obj 352 106 + 1;
#X obj 352 129 mod 4096;
#X obj 295 28 bng 15 250 50 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1
-1;
#X obj 236 214 tabwrite \$0-window;
#X obj 236 162 expr 0.5*(1.0-cos($f1*3.14159265359*2.0/4096.0)) \;
$f1;
#X obj 128 238 expr~ sqrt($v1);
#X obj 127 267 /~ 256;
#X connect 1 0 8 0;
#X connect 2 0 3 0;
#X connect 2 0 3 1;
#X connect 2 1 4 0;
#X connect 2 1 4 1;
#X connect 3 0 5 0;
#X connect 4 0 5 1;
#X connect 5 0 20 0;
#X connect 7 0 6 0;
#X connect 8 0 2 0;
#X connect 10 0 8 1;
#X connect 11 0 12 0;
#X connect 12 0 13 0;
#X connect 13 0 14 0;
#X connect 14 0 15 0;
#X connect 14 0 19 0;
#X connect 15 0 16 0;
#X connect 16 0 14 1;
#X connect 17 0 12 0;
#X connect 19 0 18 0;
#X connect 19 1 18 1;
#X connect 20 0 21 0;
#X connect 21 0 6 0;
#X restore 46 229 pd \$0-fft;
#X obj 149 232 dac~;
#X msg 586 52 \; pd dsp 1;
#X connect 0 0 2 0;
#X connect 1 0 2 1;
#X connect 2 0 8 0;
#X connect 5 0 4 0;
#X connect 5 0 17 0;
#X connect 6 0 4 0;
#X connect 6 0 17 0;
#X connect 7 0 6 0;
#X connect 8 0 4 0;
#X connect 8 0 17 1;
#X connect 8 0 18 0;
#X connect 8 0 18 1;
#X connect 12 0 1 0;
#X connect 12 0 0 0;
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 16:09 +0200, Derek Holzer wrote:
> I realize that I should have written "however higher playback 
> frequencies of the arrays will still alias"--meaning that if any of the 
> partials went above Nyquist, you'd still have aliasing. Sorry for the 
> confusion.

No problem at all.

Roman


___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 15:37 +0200, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
> Roman Haefeli escribió:
> > On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 14:14 +0200, Derek Holzer wrote:
> > 
> >> Generate bandlimited waveforms. Works for lower frequencies, however 
> >> higher frequencies will still alias...
> > 
> > Why is that? I thought, when just playing so many partials of the
> > waveform, so that all of them fit in below the nyquist frequency, there
> > won't be any aliasing? Is that wrong?
> 
> I don't think it's wrong. Obviously, if you generate only ONE table 
> (with sinesum for example) with all the partials necessary for using it 
> at low frequency, and then use it at higher frequencies, it will alias. 
> But if you use different tables for different frequencies, always 
> summing only the sines that are below the nyquist frequency, there can't 
> be any aliasing.

Thanks for clarification, Matteo and Derek. This is actually what I
initially thought as well, but the sentence 'however higher frequencies
will still alias' sounded to me, as if more measures would be necessary
in order to get completely rid of aliasing, which would have been unkown
to me.

Roman
 


___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Derek Holzer]

I realize that I should have written "however higher playback 
frequencies of the arrays will still alias"--meaning that if any of the 
partials went above Nyquist, you'd still have aliasing. Sorry for the 
confusion.


D.

On 3/28/10 4:03 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 15:37 +0200, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:

Roman Haefeli escribió:

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 14:14 +0200, Derek Holzer wrote:


Generate bandlimited waveforms. Works for lower frequencies, however
higher frequencies will still alias...


Why is that? I thought, when just playing so many partials of the
waveform, so that all of them fit in below the nyquist frequency, there
won't be any aliasing? Is that wrong?


I don't think it's wrong. Obviously, if you generate only ONE table
(with sinesum for example) with all the partials necessary for using it
at low frequency, and then use it at higher frequencies, it will alias.
But if you use different tables for different frequencies, always
summing only the sines that are below the nyquist frequency, there can't
be any aliasing.


Thanks for clarification, Matteo and Derek. This is actually what I
initially thought as well, but the sentence 'however higher frequencies
will still alias' sounded to me, as if more measures would be necessary
in order to get completely rid of aliasing, which would have been unkown
to me.

Roman





--
::: derek holzer ::: http://macumbista.net :::
---Oblique Strategy # 154:
"The most easily forgotten thing is the most important"

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Matteo Sisti Sette]

Roman Haefeli escribió:

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 14:14 +0200, Derek Holzer wrote:

Generate bandlimited waveforms. Works for lower frequencies, however 
higher frequencies will still alias...


Why is that? I thought, when just playing so many partials of the
waveform, so that all of them fit in below the nyquist frequency, there
won't be any aliasing? Is that wrong?


I don't think it's wrong. Obviously, if you generate only ONE table 
(with sinesum for example) with all the partials necessary for using it 
at low frequency, and then use it at higher frequencies, it will alias. 
But if you use different tables for different frequencies, always 
summing only the sines that are below the nyquist frequency, there can't 
be any aliasing.


By the way thanks Derek for the link. Now I see why sinesum is _so_ 
useful (indeed I could/should have seen it before -lol)





--
Matteo Sisti Sette
matteosistise...@gmail.com
http://www.matteosistisette.com

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 15:04 +0200, Derek Holzer wrote:
> Well, that is only if all the partials remain under the Nyquist 
> frequency. The idea is to limit the higher harmonics to the ones 
> described by whatever formula you use to generate the waveforms, but if 
> you eliminated all of them them you would just have a sine wave again 
> ;-) So what you get is considerably less aliasing, but without 
> oversampling and filtering you will still get some.

Let's  assume you can make sure, that the maximum number of partials
usually is played, but the highest partials is never exceeding the
nyquist frequency, which means you use different tables for different
frequencies of the waveform generator, then you won't get any aliasing,
will you?

Roman



___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Derek Holzer]

Yes that would work!!!

D.

On 3/28/10 3:24 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 15:04 +0200, Derek Holzer wrote:

Well, that is only if all the partials remain under the Nyquist
frequency. The idea is to limit the higher harmonics to the ones
described by whatever formula you use to generate the waveforms, but if
you eliminated all of them them you would just have a sine wave again
;-) So what you get is considerably less aliasing, but without
oversampling and filtering you will still get some.


Let's  assume you can make sure, that the maximum number of partials
usually is played, but the highest partials is never exceeding the
nyquist frequency, which means you use different tables for different
frequencies of the waveform generator, then you won't get any aliasing,
will you?

Roman





--
::: derek holzer ::: http://macumbista.net :::
---Oblique Strategy # 164:
"Twist the spine"

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Derek Holzer]

Well, that is only if all the partials remain under the Nyquist 
frequency. The idea is to limit the higher harmonics to the ones 
described by whatever formula you use to generate the waveforms, but if 
you eliminated all of them them you would just have a sine wave again 
;-) So what you get is considerably less aliasing, but without 
oversampling and filtering you will still get some.


Of course I'm no DSP guru, perhaps someone more mathematically inclined 
could give a better answer.


Best!
D.

On 3/28/10 2:57 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 14:14 +0200, Derek Holzer wrote:


Generate bandlimited waveforms. Works for lower frequencies, however
higher frequencies will still alias...


Why is that? I thought, when just playing so many partials of the
waveform, so that all of them fit in below the nyquist frequency, there
won't be any aliasing? Is that wrong?


http://en.flossmanuals.net/PureData/GeneratingWaveforms


Very illustrative.

Roman





--
::: derek holzer ::: http://macumbista.net :::
---Oblique Strategy # 47:
"Discover the recipes you are using and abandon them"

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 14:14 +0200, Derek Holzer wrote:

> Generate bandlimited waveforms. Works for lower frequencies, however 
> higher frequencies will still alias...

Why is that? I thought, when just playing so many partials of the
waveform, so that all of them fit in below the nyquist frequency, there
won't be any aliasing? Is that wrong?

> http://en.flossmanuals.net/PureData/GeneratingWaveforms

Very illustrative. 

Roman



___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[cyrille henry]

Matteo Sisti Sette a écrit :

Frank wrote:

 > It's not so much the tool, as it is the skills that makes music
 > sound good.

That is true for really good tools. Needless to say that Pd is one of them.

But there are a lot of tools out there with which it is not so much the 
skills as it is the tool that makes music sound good - meaning that a 
completely unskilled musician can make something that sounds "pretty 
good", and a skilled musician cannot make things sound much better (and 
usually won't use such tools). In those cases the music usually "sounds 
like the tool". Those are bad tools for making music, though they can be 
excellent tools for having fun.




 > If you use a [phasor~] as a sawtooth oscillator source,
 > you're "wrong" in both Max and Pd.

Sorry may I ask why? Do you mean that using a sawtooth oscillator source 
is a wrong starting point for creating interesting music, or that 
[phasor~] is not the right object to use as a sawtooth oscillator?? In 
the latter case, what should you use instead??


(ohhh, I see maybe: it is because of aliasing isn't it? indeed I always 
wondered: how do you simulate a sawtooth oscillator and avoid aliasing 
[without a huge oversampling and filtering]?)


you can find lot's of band limited saw oscillator.
the one i love best can be find here : 
http://www.chnry.net/ch/?083-Nusmuk-audio


cyrille









___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Derek Holzer]

On 3/28/10 2:05 PM, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:


[phasor~] is not the right object to use as a sawtooth oscillator?? In
the latter case, what should you use instead??


Because it has DC offset...the signal is only in the positive domain. If 
you don't care about aliasing, you can do this:


[*~ 2]
|
[-~ 1]

http://en.flossmanuals.net/PureData/DCOffset


(ohhh, I see maybe: it is because of aliasing isn't it? indeed I always
wondered: how do you simulate a sawtooth oscillator and avoid aliasing
[without a huge oversampling and filtering]?)


Generate bandlimited waveforms. Works for lower frequencies, however 
higher frequencies will still alias...


http://en.flossmanuals.net/PureData/GeneratingWaveforms

Best,
Derek

--
::: derek holzer ::: http://macumbista.net :::
---Oblique Strategy # 87:
"Imagine the music as a moving chain or caterpillar"

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Matteo Sisti Sette]

Frank wrote:

> It's not so much the tool, as it is the skills that makes music
> sound good.

That is true for really good tools. Needless to say that Pd is one of them.

But there are a lot of tools out there with which it is not so much the 
skills as it is the tool that makes music sound good - meaning that a 
completely unskilled musician can make something that sounds "pretty 
good", and a skilled musician cannot make things sound much better (and 
usually won't use such tools). In those cases the music usually "sounds 
like the tool". Those are bad tools for making music, though they can be 
excellent tools for having fun.




> If you use a [phasor~] as a sawtooth oscillator source,
> you're "wrong" in both Max and Pd.

Sorry may I ask why? Do you mean that using a sawtooth oscillator source 
is a wrong starting point for creating interesting music, or that 
[phasor~] is not the right object to use as a sawtooth oscillator?? In 
the latter case, what should you use instead??


(ohhh, I see maybe: it is because of aliasing isn't it? indeed I always 
wondered: how do you simulate a sawtooth oscillator and avoid aliasing 
[without a huge oversampling and filtering]?)




--
Matteo Sisti Sette
matteosistise...@gmail.com
http://www.matteosistisette.com

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 20:35 +0100, martin brinkmann wrote:

> i am just listening to "hinsichtlich", and i really like
> the pad-sound which starts at about 3:00 (right after this
> 'distortion accident'). can you tell me what patch it is?

It's a never-released a bit naive saw based synth with hard-coded major7
chord. I tried to reproduce the sound from "hinsichtlich" and it seems
that it is just made of this synth and some reverb, probably the
netpd-ized rev3 from pd-vanilla. 

you can find the major7.pd patch and its depencencies here:
http://www.romanhaefeli.net/software/pd/
depends:
 * netpd_bandlimited_oscillators
 * peakfilter~
 * roman_helpers
 * jamx (from netpd.org)
 * i2mx~ (from "mx" from netpd.org)

To get it, the simpliest would probably be, if you'd log in and I open
it for you.

> > Is it time for having a pool for Pd-made music?
> 
> a while ago there was a "music made with pd" topic on this list,
> and there where some good examples posted. i remember especially
> a track called "post" by "daax", which i like very much.
> (nice pads and sample treatment vs. super-harsh percussion)

couldn't find that particular track on:
http://noconventions.mobi/nvisible.taz/
but there are many interesting sounding tracks there. thanks for
mentioning.

Roman

 



___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 11:44 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:07:29AM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > Is it time for having a pool for Pd-made music? There was the Pd radio
> > which I quite liked. Would it require a lot of effort to bring it up
> > again?
> 
> Not quite the same, but as you know, http://rjdj.me has hours and hours of
> Pd-made music, albeit in 22050 Hz, so it's not exactly a showcase for the most
> hifi Pd sounds possible. Still I find many of these to be pretty good 
> sounding.

Totally. Thanks for posting. These are good examples and they show, that
you can create complex textures and smooth sounds even without using
fancy externals and the help of ready-made VSTs. And hey, that is coming
out from an iPhone, a computer with rather weak processing power. And
no, it's not all sample based.

> Regarding the smoothness of Max/Pd/etc. lets heed to the words of our
> grandfather Max Mathews: 
>   
>   "Max and Pd allow almost anyone to synthesize uninteresting timbres almost
>   instantly. Making interesting timbres is much more difficult and requires 
> much
>   additional knowledge."
>   http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/techniques/latest/book-html/node5.html

This reminids me of:
"Making boring techno music is really easy with modern tools, but with  
live coding, boring techno is much harder." - Chris McCormick

> It's not so much the tool, as it is the skills that makes music sound good. If
> you use a [phasor~] as a sawtooth oscillator source, you're "wrong" in both 
> Max
> and Pd.

I fully agree. My feeling is when it comes to producing (more
popular/club-oriented/mainstream oriented) music, the difference between
using Pd and using ready-made software from the market is mainly the
fact, that the Pd way requires much more an effort to prepare the
environment someone is heading for, which doesn't necessarily mean it is
less feasible to do. Additionally, Pd allows for projects like RjDj.
IMHO, using Pd also for creating boring techno is still valid and I
think it is fun. 

Roman




___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Frank Barknecht]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:07:29AM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> Is it time for having a pool for Pd-made music? There was the Pd radio
> which I quite liked. Would it require a lot of effort to bring it up
> again?

Not quite the same, but as you know, http://rjdj.me has hours and hours of
Pd-made music, albeit in 22050 Hz, so it's not exactly a showcase for the most
hifi Pd sounds possible. Still I find many of these to be pretty good sounding.

Regarding the smoothness of Max/Pd/etc. lets heed to the words of our
grandfather Max Mathews: 
  
  "Max and Pd allow almost anyone to synthesize uninteresting timbres almost
  instantly. Making interesting timbres is much more difficult and requires much
  additional knowledge."
  http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/techniques/latest/book-html/node5.html

It's not so much the tool, as it is the skills that makes music sound good. If
you use a [phasor~] as a sawtooth oscillator source, you're "wrong" in both Max
and Pd.

Ciao
-- 
Frank

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[martin brinkmann]

Roman Haefeli wrote:

> Here's a minimal track also made with Pd, for the sake of diversity:
> http://www.netpd.org/sessions/2007-11-08_antiwecker.mp3

thats a cool track! and there are a few more on the server.
i am just listening to "hinsichtlich", and i really like
the pad-sound which starts at about 3:00 (right after this
'distortion accident'). can you tell me what patch it is?

> Is it time for having a pool for Pd-made music?

a while ago there was a "music made with pd" topic on this list,
and there where some good examples posted. i remember especially
a track called "post" by "daax", which i like very much.
(nice pads and sample treatment vs. super-harsh percussion)

bis denn!
martin

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Ben Baker-Smith]

>Here's a minimal track also made with Pd, for the sake of diversity:
>http://www.netpd.org/sessions/2007-11-08_antiwecker.mp3

I really liked that track. Thanks for posting.

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Malte Steiner]

On 26.03.2010 09:18, Dan Wilcox wrote:

SubOptimal Demo



nice Devo feeling!

--

media art + development
http://www.block4.com
follow me on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/herrsteiner
or face the book:
http://www.facebook.com/herrsteiner


___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 09:18 +0100, Dan Wilcox wrote:


> Well I am no pd king either, but it's been working quite well for me
> after the initial investment of learning and building patches.
> 
> 
> Here's a song recorded with multiple tracks from pd directly to Ardour
> on an old single core Linux laptop.  All of the effects were applied
> live within pd and the tracks were mixed in Ardour and mastered using
> Jamin.
> 
> 
> SubOptimal Demo

Yeah, thanks for posting. Definitely interesting to hear about different
practices and their results.

Here's a minimal track also made with Pd, for the sake of diversity:
http://www.netpd.org/sessions/2007-11-08_antiwecker.mp3

Is it time for having a pool for Pd-made music? There was the Pd radio
which I quite liked. Would it require a lot of effort to bring it up
again?

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] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Dan Wilcox]

On Mar 25, 2010, at 9:34 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:

>> but just demonstrate that in despite a lot of efforts to have tools for 
>> making music with pd, there's no way to make something smooth enough to be 
>> commercial, unless cheating with some steinberg or direct x stuff, of 
>> knowing by heart all the dsp tricks. Anyway, I'd like to hear something 
>> composed by a king of pd patches, for the fun.
> 
> Me too!


Well I am no pd king either, but it's been working quite well for me after the 
initial investment of learning and building patches.

Here's a song recorded with multiple tracks from pd directly to Ardour on an 
old single core Linux laptop.  All of the effects were applied live within pd 
and the tracks were mixed in Ardour and mastered using Jamin.

SubOptimal Demo

Yeah, there's no fancy synthesis going on, but I thing the sound is comparable 
to what I might have done using any daw ... and I can run it on "slow" and 
"useless" hardware which Logic, Cubase, and a millions vsts could not.


Dan Wilcox
danomatika.com
robotcowboy.com




___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Tim Blechmann]

>> > But I wonder how this can be different in Max (note that I don't know
>> > Max at all (almost))
>> 
>> i cannot comment on max, but comparing the implementations of
>> supercollider's unit generators and pd's tilde objects shows a big
>> different in the handling of parameter changes. pd uses new parameters
>> instantly, while supercollider does a one-block interpolation, so it
>> should sound `smoother'.
> 
> I can't comment on supercollider, but while it's true what you say about
> Pd, it's very easy to overcome that by using [line~]s or even better
> [vline~].

only for objects supporting audio-rate arguments and at the cost of 
performance ;)

-- 
t...@klingt.org
http://tim.klingt.org

Linux is like a wigwam: no windows, no gates, apache inside, stable.



___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Mike Moser-Booth]

>From my experience, I think the main issue that distinguishes these
apps is the source material. Csound, for example, comes with a boatload
of signal generators, many of which take care of difficult issues like
aliasing internally. Though I don't use Reaktor much, it has some nice
sounding oscillators. Max has some basic band-limited waveforms, though
I don't find them to be that great. You don't get these with Pd; you
have to build them. Personally, I find the difference in sound quality
between Max and Pd to be negligible, if at all noticeable.

.mmb

martin.pe...@sympatico.ca wrote:

  vboehm wrote:point)
  
  
oha, myth-alarm! max (still) uses 32-bits.

  
  
Yeah I guess you're right. In the Max sdk docs they sometimes refer to 32-bit floats as 'doubles'.
e.g. "The other options are A_FLOAT for doubles, A_SYM for symbols, and A_GIMME,..."
but the Max atom is essentially identical to the Pd atom, so it must be a float.

Max has an integer atom type (A_LONG) while Pd doesn't, although Pd declares some integer methods in m_pd.h, but that won't affect the audio.

So csound doubles version should sound best of all...

Martin

 		 	   		  
___
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] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 22:45 +0100, Tim Blechmann wrote:
> >> in despite a lot of efforts to have tools for making music with pd,
> >  > there's no way to make something smooth enough to be commercial,
> >> unless cheating with some steinberg or direct x stuff,
> > 
> > That doesn't seem strange to me: I guess all the sound processing
> > involved in creating _fullu_ "commercial"-sounding stuff would be quite
> > complicated to implement natively in Pd and probably too cpu-expensive -
> > anybody correct me if I am wrong.
> > 
> > But I wonder how this can be different in Max (note that I don't know
> > Max at all (almost))
> 
> i cannot comment on max, but comparing the implementations of 
> supercollider's unit generators and pd's tilde objects shows a big different 
> in the handling of parameter changes. pd uses new parameters instantly, 
> while supercollider does a one-block interpolation, so it should sound 
> `smoother'.

I can't comment on supercollider, but while it's true what you say about
Pd, it's very easy to overcome that by using [line~]s or even better
[vline~]. 

Roman


___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Tim Blechmann]

>> in despite a lot of efforts to have tools for making music with pd,
>  > there's no way to make something smooth enough to be commercial,
>> unless cheating with some steinberg or direct x stuff,
> 
> That doesn't seem strange to me: I guess all the sound processing
> involved in creating _fullu_ "commercial"-sounding stuff would be quite
> complicated to implement natively in Pd and probably too cpu-expensive -
> anybody correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> But I wonder how this can be different in Max (note that I don't know
> Max at all (almost))

i cannot comment on max, but comparing the implementations of 
supercollider's unit generators and pd's tilde objects shows a big different 
in the handling of parameter changes. pd uses new parameters instantly, 
while supercollider does a one-block interpolation, so it should sound 
`smoother'.

-- 
t...@klingt.org
http://tim.klingt.org

You don't have to call it music if the term shocks you.
  John Cage



___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Alexandre Porres]

>* I'd like to hear something composed by a king of pd patches, for the fun.*
have fun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA4PbPKZuwk

Oh, by the way, as I said, usually, programmers work in partnership with
composers, as the case above. Both worked together in the 80's at IRCAM
(with max) and still do now in San Diego (with Pd).

>* I've no clue about how max instrument patches sounds*...
>* no way to make something smooth enough to be commercial*>* unless knowing by 
>heart all the dsp tricks*
That's the "what you get is what you did" rule I said before.

but more than that, people don't go for this kind of thing if their interest
is mostly synthesis. There are tons of synthesizers in the world, made by
people who know all the DSP tricks (engeneers in fact). The cool thing about
programng is that you can create new interactive stuff, controllers, tell me
machine when to react and what to do if this and that... all in realtime,
and then use it to control even a hardware synthesizer.

Here's an example, there are tons of Phase Vocoders, several plug ins, but
none work in realtime. But actually, pd comes with a Phase Vocoder that was
just about ready to be used live in realtime. So I tweaked it, I've been
told these patces of mine look like ableton live... they use nothing but
objects from Pd-Vanilla. Phase Vocoding Abstractions: [PVoc.pd] &
[LPVoc.pd]

And I'm far from considering myself a "pd king", this is basic stuff for
me...

cheers
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[martin brinkmann]

Roman Haefeli wrote:

> Actually, there vanilla-based bandlimited oscillators and some
> netpd-synths are using them.

maybe the "one good-sounding synth" is one of them.

and i remember some synths which use just phasor~-0.5
(which i also use quite often).


bis denn!
martin

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Roman Haefeli]

> mnb wrote:
> . (not so much
> > like 'ice-cold fm-pads', more like '8-bit lofi with aliasing'.)

If you intentionally want that 8-bit lofi aliasing feeling, then yeah.

Roman


___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 21:05 +, martin.pe...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> mnb wrote:
> > colet.patr...@free.fr wrote:
> >
> >> didn't like the sonority of netpd for example, because rendered
> >> texture are poor, only one sytnh sound good
> >
> > the reason might be that netpd is 'pd-vanilla', and there are
> > not so much techniques used for getting smooth(er) sound (afair),
> > like bandlimited oscs

Actually, there vanilla-based bandlimited oscillators and some
netpd-synths are using them.

Roman


___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[martin brinkmann]

martin.pe...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> If a basic [osc~] sounds like 8 bits I think maybe you need a better sound 
> card. ;)

i did not mean that literally ;) and i like 'lo-fi-sound'.

bis denn!
martin


___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[martin.peach]

mnb wrote:
> colet.patr...@free.fr wrote:
>
>> didn't like the sonority of netpd for example, because rendered
>> texture are poor, only one sytnh sound good
>
> the reason might be that netpd is 'pd-vanilla', and there are
> not so much techniques used for getting smooth(er) sound (afair),
> like bandlimited oscs and custom filters. without any further effort (or
> using externals), pd sounds pretty rough and 'digital'. (not so much
> like 'ice-cold fm-pads', more like '8-bit lofi with aliasing'.)

If a basic [osc~] sounds like 8 bits I think maybe you need a better sound 
card. ;)

Martin
  
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[martin brinkmann]

colet.patr...@free.fr wrote:

> didn't like the sonority of netpd for example, because rendered
> texture are poor, only one sytnh sound good

the reason might be that netpd is 'pd-vanilla', and there are
not so much techniques used for getting smooth(er) sound (afair),
like bandlimited oscs and custom filters. without any further effort (or
using externals), pd sounds pretty rough and 'digital'. (not so much
like 'ice-cold fm-pads', more like '8-bit lofi with aliasing'.)

a 'modern' version of netpd, using rjlib for example, might sound
better.

i think max/msp has a few more good sounding 'built-in'-objects than pd
(i have only played a little with the demo version), and other
systems, which are more high-level (reaktor, supercollider, csound)
have 'good-sounding' modules out-of-the-box anyway.
but i think it is possible to achieve similar quality with pd.
it needs (quite a lot) more effort though...

bis denn!
martin

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Roman Haefeli]

Hi Patko

I'm so sad to hear that you don't seem to like those sounds at all. But
thanks for the feedback.

On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 19:36 +0100, colet.patr...@free.fr wrote:

>  In fact I've no clue about how max instrument patches sounds, only using it 
> for livelooping, but I and other musicians like me didn't like the sonority 
> of netpd for example, because rendered texture are poor, only one sytnh sound 
> good (I don't remember which one), and once we've turned around all 
> sonorities of this synth, there's not much things to play with.
>  I'm not blaming the great work of roman on netpd,

No offense taken.
It was the work of quite a few people.

>  but just demonstrate that in despite a lot of efforts to have tools for 
> making music with pd, there's no way to make something smooth enough to be 
> commercial, unless cheating with some steinberg or direct x stuff, of knowing 
> by heart all the dsp tricks. Anyway, I'd like to hear something composed by a 
> king of pd patches, for the fun.

Me too!

You made me really, really curious: Which synth was it that you didn't
dislike so much? Or can you point me to a track that's using that synth?

Roman


___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[martin.peach]

vboehm wrote:point)
>
> oha, myth-alarm! max (still) uses 32-bits.

Yeah I guess you're right. In the Max sdk docs they sometimes refer to 32-bit 
floats as 'doubles'.
e.g. "The other options are A_FLOAT for doubles, A_SYM for symbols, and 
A_GIMME,..."
but the Max atom is essentially identical to the Pd atom, so it must be a float.

Max has an integer atom type (A_LONG) while Pd doesn't, although Pd declares 
some integer methods in m_pd.h, but that won't affect the audio.

So csound doubles version should sound best of all...

Martin

  
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[vade]

Not a DSP guy (video guy), but I've heard the same exact complaints of Max/MSP 
- that other commercial apps have a smoother sound generally, even with simple 
patches.

Since Max used a version of PD at some point for the DSP stuff, I'd imagine 
they would be in general about the same, but what do I know.


On Mar 25, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:

> colet.patr...@free.fr escribió:
> 
>> in despite a lot of efforts to have tools for making music with pd, 
> > there's no way to make something smooth enough to be commercial,
>> unless cheating with some steinberg or direct x stuff, 
> 
> That doesn't seem strange to me: I guess all the sound processing involved in 
> creating _fullu_ "commercial"-sounding stuff would be quite complicated to 
> implement natively in Pd and probably too cpu-expensive - anybody correct me 
> if I am wrong.
> 
> But I wonder how this can be different in Max (note that I don't know Max at 
> all (almost))
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matteo Sisti Sette
> matteosistise...@gmail.com
> http://www.matteosistisette.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] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[volker böhm]

On 25.03.2010, at 19:55,  > wrote:




matteosistisette wrote:

colet.patr...@free.fr escribió:


in despite a lot of efforts to have tools for making music with pd,
there's no way to make something smooth enough to be commercial,
unless cheating with some steinberg or direct x stuff,


That doesn't seem strange to me: I guess all the sound processing
involved in creating _fullu_ "commercial"-sounding stuff would be  
quite
complicated to implement natively in Pd and probably too cpu- 
expensive -

anybody correct me if I am wrong.

But I wonder how this can be different in Max (note that I don't know
Max at all (almost))



I think the main difference is that Max uses doubles (64-bit  
floating point)


oha, myth-alarm! max (still) uses 32-bits.
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[martin.peach]

matteosistisette wrote:
> colet.patr...@free.fr escribió:
>
>> in despite a lot of efforts to have tools for making music with pd,
>> there's no way to make something smooth enough to be commercial,
>> unless cheating with some steinberg or direct x stuff,
>
> That doesn't seem strange to me: I guess all the sound processing
> involved in creating _fullu_ "commercial"-sounding stuff would be quite
> complicated to implement natively in Pd and probably too cpu-expensive -
> anybody correct me if I am wrong.
>
> But I wonder how this can be different in Max (note that I don't know
> Max at all (almost))
>

I think the main difference is that Max uses doubles (64-bit floating point) 
and Pd uses floats (32-bit floating point) to calculate the audio.
There are two varieties of csound, one use floats and the other uses doubles: 
files rendered with the doubles version usually sound better.

Martin


  
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Matteo Sisti Sette]

colet.patr...@free.fr escribió:

in despite a lot of efforts to have tools for making music with pd, 

> there's no way to make something smooth enough to be commercial,
unless cheating with some steinberg or direct x stuff, 


That doesn't seem strange to me: I guess all the sound processing 
involved in creating _fullu_ "commercial"-sounding stuff would be quite 
complicated to implement natively in Pd and probably too cpu-expensive - 
anybody correct me if I am wrong.


But I wonder how this can be different in Max (note that I don't know 
Max at all (almost))



--
Matteo Sisti Sette
matteosistise...@gmail.com
http://www.matteosistisette.com

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[colet . patrice]

hello,


 In fact I've no clue about how max instrument patches sounds, only using it 
for livelooping, but I and other musicians like me didn't like the sonority of 
netpd for example, because rendered texture are poor, only one sytnh sound good 
(I don't remember which one), and once we've turned around all sonorities of 
this synth, there's not much things to play with.
 I'm not blaming the great work of roman on netpd, but just demonstrate that in 
despite a lot of efforts to have tools for making music with pd, there's no way 
to make something smooth enough to be commercial, unless cheating with some 
steinberg or direct x stuff, of knowing by heart all the dsp tricks. Anyway, 
I'd like to hear something composed by a king of pd patches, for the fun.

- Mail Original -
De: "Matteo Sisti Sette" 
À: por...@gmail.com
Cc: "PD list" 
Envoyé: Jeudi 25 Mars 2010 18h17:11 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne / 
Rome / Stockholm / Vienne
Objet: Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

 > So, I think this is an important myth to get over...

Well that seems a kinda "biased" approach :)


Whenever anybody says that "Max sounds smoother than Pd" (or viceversa 
of course) we should force him to answer these three questions:

1) define "smoother", what the hell does it mean (is it less 
clicks/pops? is it less dropouts? or what else?)

max provides many objects that easily remove or avoid clicks/pops, on pd we 
almost always have to follow some patching rules that easily drive the lay 
person to mistakes, that generate clicks and pops

2) are you comparing with the same hardware?

3) Let me see the patches (ok this is not a question - this is a demand, 
lol)


___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Jonathan Wilkes]

--- On Thu, 3/25/10, Matteo Sisti Sette  wrote:

> From: Matteo Sisti Sette 
> Subject: Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?
> To: por...@gmail.com
> Cc: "PD list" 
> Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 6:17 PM
> > So, I think this is an important
> myth to get over...
> 
> Well that seems a kinda "biased" approach :)
> 
> 
> Whenever anybody says that "Max sounds smoother than Pd"
> (or viceversa of course) we should force him to answer these
> three questions:
> 
> 1) define "smoother", what the hell does it mean (is it
> less clicks/pops? is it less dropouts? or what else?)
> 
> 2) are you comparing with the same hardware?
> 
> 3) Let me see the patches (ok this is not a question - this
> is a demand, lol)

You don't even need to do 1).  You could take examples from both 
environments (being as careful as possible to make the patches identical 
and have everyone listen and judge on the same hardware) 
and do a blind test on which sound is smoother/better/etc.  If the 
results clearly favor sound a over sound b, either there is something to 
it or something was screwy in one of the patches.

Sounds like someone at cnmat played around with the whole Max vs. 
Supercollider question a while back (though it was just two people):
http://cnmat.berkeley.edu/user/john_maccallum/blog/2008/08/22/max_msp_v_supercollider_part_1

Somebody in the Max forum mentioned in the blog addressed how the software 
interface may influence perception of sound quality.  I think that's 
important to keep in mind-- if you're switching back and forth between 
Max and Pd to compare sounds many other things might be influencing your 
judgment.

-Jonathan


  

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd?

[Matteo Sisti Sette]

> So, I think this is an important myth to get over...

Well that seems a kinda "biased" approach :)


Whenever anybody says that "Max sounds smoother than Pd" (or viceversa 
of course) we should force him to answer these three questions:


1) define "smoother", what the hell does it mean (is it less 
clicks/pops? is it less dropouts? or what else?)


2) are you comparing with the same hardware?

3) Let me see the patches (ok this is not a question - this is a demand, 
lol)


If he/she cannot provide these data, we should force him/her to 
apologize for what s/he said - not because it is false but because it 
doesn't mean anything :)


We could speculate a lot about why a person may think Max sound smoother 
than Pd and be wrong, or about why Max may actually sound smoother than 
Pd and "be wrong" (e.g. what-you-get-is-not-just-what-you-did), OR why 
Max may actually and surprisingly sound smoother than Pd "for a good 
reason" (do we really know every detail to the last bit of any given 
sample of a sinusoid?)... But that would be only speculation until we 
know what we are talking about.


--
Matteo Sisti Sette
matteosistise...@gmail.com
http://www.matteosistisette.com

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd? (was: Pd, Max/Msp, Reaktor, Plogue Bidule... How do these compare?)

[Michal Seta]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Alexandre Porres  wrote:
> "I feel Max produce a smoother audio than Pd. Didit"
>
> So, did anybody get to this and finished up the discussion (I didn't see it,
> sorry)?
> Anyway, it doesn't make sense to me.

yeah, this an interesting discussion that pops up on various mailing
lists relating to DSP or some variant of electro[nic][acoustic] music.
 From what I gather (off the top of my head) CSound sounds the best :)

But I didn't keep any statistics.  Feel free to prove me wrong :)

./MiS

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

[PD] Max Smoother Audio than Pd? (was: Pd, Max/Msp, Reaktor, Plogue Bidule... How do these compare?)

[Alexandre Porres]

"I feel Max produce a smoother audio than Pd. Didit"


So, did anybody get to this and finished up the discussion (I didn't see it,
sorry)?

Anyway, it doesn't make sense to me.  For starters, the sound is made by
your sound card (and whatever you feed it) and your speakers actually. It's
al numbers inside! And they're computed by your CPU... as far as the
software goes, it doesn't generate randomly noisely distorted signals. Or
does it? :)

Well, actually, in this software, most of what you get is not provided by
the software. You get a blank canvas when you start it, in other words:
"What you did is what you get".

Sometimes the clicking can be some silly detail like using a 5ms [line~] in
switching the the gain... or some other bug, we'd have to see what you're
doing.

So, I think this is an important myth to get over... I hope this thread gets
to it.

Cheers
Alex



2010/3/24 Alexandre Porres 

> "i can't remember exactly where i read this, sorry. but i'd really like to be
> able to use the vst object to run it in ableton. Jeff"
>
>
> Hey, why don't you just create a bridge between Live + Pd with Jack?
>
> Alex
>
>
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list