Subject: RE: [linux-audio-dev] SuperClonider
From: Ivica Bukvic (ico_AT_fuse.net)
Date: Mon Apr 22 2002 - 11:20:46 EEST
Just to add my 5-cents worth to this topic, there is yet another great
algorithmic music program/language and that is RTcmix (originally made
by Paul Lansky [he made "Idle Chatter" using it] and further developed
by John Gibson, Dave Topper, and Brad Garton). It is GPL'ed and its
built-in language called MINC ["Minc is not C"] offers a wide array of
Gen routines, signal routing (Aux sends), real-time and non-real-time
instruments, for-next loops, random number generators, variables, and if
statements. It is obviously not object-oriented, but does well in the
algorithmic department, especially now since now you can do the coding
in both Perl and Python instead of using somewhat anemic MINC syntax,
which obviously greatly expands its flexibility. It does not have
scorefile and orchestra file, it is all-in-one kind of a script which I
find to be much more user-friendly than the csound approach (this
obviously being my subjective opinion). It also offers direct control of
the latency via the buffer and supports multi-channel (unfortunately
currently only OSS -- I've been trying to get some people help me port
me this beast to Alsa/jack, anyone interested? :-), as well as multiple
soundfile formats. It has both sound-processing insts and synthesis
ones, and offers limited real-time updating (some instruments have been
updated recently to support it). And on top of that, it has one of the
best reverb insts I've used so far on any platform. Runs on IRIX, Linux,
and OS X (no real-time, though, on OS X due to crappy pthread
implementation). I've also heard of the OS 9 port.
Check it out here:
http://www.music.columbia.edu/cmix/
I also have the app which can serve as a very useful front-end to this
software (as well as csound and any other script-based languages and
audio events) for the real-time performances called rtmix. If
interested, go check out:
http://meowing.ccm.uc.edu/~ico/
As far as the Superclonider idea is concerned I would love to see that
happen since at this point I have some serious doubts James will ever
port Supercollider to Linux (which dissapoints me greatly, but there is
no way in the world I will buy an overpriced and [according to my view]
inferior Apple architecture just because of one application). He simply
strikes me (from reading some of his statements) as one of the devoted
Apple followers. Yet, if he ever ported Supercollider to Linux, I'd have
absolutely no problems dishing out some cash to support further
development of the software.
On the other hand, I think it would be wise for James to port this thing
in the long run to an OS that is practically guarranteed to stick around
for a long time (obviously GNU OS such as BSD or Linux, no need to
mention which one I am rooting for ;-), rather than relying on the
closed-source proprietary technology that has not been selling all that
well lately and for which there's no way of knowing just how much longer
it will be around (I am not trying to say that Apple is going out of
business, but am just overstating the issue for the point-making
purposes -- I'd appreciate it greatly if no flames came in my direction
due to me expressing my opinion).
If there was such GNU project as Superclonider, I would not see it as
"stealing" away from James's hard work, but rather broadening interest
and user-base to his formidable design. After all, if he does not [or
will not] provide a port for Linux, what is there to stop us from making
one?
Ico
P.S. I heard an interesting rumor regarding OS X. Since its kernel
(Darwin) has originally been designed on an Intel-compatible platform
(and is supposedly still being developed by the mixed Intel/Apple
community) this rumor does not seem so far-fetched, especially since it
comes from a friend of mine who is a devoted Apple fan. He mentioned
that Apple has an in-house working Intel version of the OS X which to me
seems like a back-up plan if the deal with Motorola eventually
evaporates. Now, if this is true, then I would seriously consider buying
OS X just for the sake of Supercollider ;-).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-linux-audio-dev_AT_music.columbia.edu
[mailto:owner-linux-audio-
> dev_AT_music.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Michael J McGonagle
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 5:23 PM
> To: linux-audio-dev_AT_music.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] SuperClonider
>
> John Lazzaro wrote:
> >
> > > So rather than steal all the ideas from SuperCollider, why don't
you
> invent
> > > something better?! Design a new language and create a new musical
> paradigm!
> >
> > No -- come work on Structured Audio instead. We're happy to have
> multiple
> > implementations of the language, as an MPEG standard for audio
> synthesis,
> > the _goal_ is to have multiple interoperable implementations. See:
>
> Hear, Hear!!! SAOL is a nice C-like language, that (IMHO) corrects all
> of the faults of Csound (which really should have been called
> 'Assembler-Sound'). Also, the language is extensible, so you don't
need
> to write "opcodes" in some higher level language, and then link them
to
> the interpreter.
>
> Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Apr 22 2002 - 11:02:31 EEST