Re: [LAU] Voice-to-drums in general and the Trigger LADSPA in particular

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

From: S. Massy <lists@...>

To: Fons Adriaensen <fons@...>

Cc: <linux-audio-user@...>

Subject: Re: [LAU] Voice-to-drums in general and the Trigger LADSPA in particular

Date: Friday, September 23, 2011 - 3:31 pm

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:21:45AM +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

quoted text

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:07:22PM -0400, S. Massy wrote:
>
> > Just idle curiosity, but why do you guys recommend PD over SC or csound?
> > I had the idea they were more or less equally suited.
>
> For someone who knows them well, yes.
>
> But in the other case, if you have to learn one of them
> from scratch just to solve a particular problem, I'm pretty
> sure that Pd is the easier way to go. And that is *not* just
> because it has a graphical user interface.
>
> Take SC. I love the way the synthesis engine works and can
> be controlled using OSC. But, even as a programmer, that is
> someone used to writing formal instructions and descriptions
> in a text based format, I have to *fight* the SC language all
> the time. IMHO it's a mess, and it seems to be designed to
> allow spectacular one-liners rather than for clarity and
> consistency. I'm using it now only to write synthdefs, for
> all the rest I use Python.

Thanks. I was just curious, since PD is the only one of the major
synthesis engines I haven't played with (because of its graphical
nature). And I do catch your drift about SC. In fact, it seems to be a
common sin of all those languages, as they seem to evolve out of need
(functionality) rather than design (semantics): it can be good or bad,
but usually is confusing to the newcomer, whatever else it is.

Cheers,
S.M.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user