Niels Gorisse wrote:
> The demo has all modules, but the Effects are left out; that is
> more-or-less unofficially said (on the saol-developers list) to be legal
> (more or less).
:-) That's a conformance question, can anybody answer that ?
> The reason is that the reverb opcode has really weird
> parameters so I don't know how to implement such a one, otherwise I did
> implement it (the reference implementation also does not have this reverb).
Have you checked if it wasn't implemented in sfront either ?
> The solution is the use of the macro's. You can build all effects with the
> default modules of CPS. There are two reverb examples, I already build a
> flanger, and I will do so for the chorus. The only thing that's left to do
> then is to place them in the /macros directory.
Macros will use more cpu I suppose, will we get all SAOL core opcodes in a
future implementation ?
> You mean the Generator/Reaktor like 'panel'? Well, just as MAX/jMAX, CPS
> has it's visual elements within the patch, and not in an external panel.
> So, to keep it seperated when making a soft synth with CPS, you must put
> all audio elements in a subpatch, and put all visual controllers in the
> main patch.
I see. Wouldn't a separate panel look more "hardware like" ? I mean, the most
convenient layout of visual controllers on a panel is not necessarily the most
convenient layout of a patch structure. Also you don't necessarily want to see
wires when you just want to play your orchestra. I agree it's nice
intellectually to have a single concept instead of two, but I'm not sure it
won't confuse some people.
> That only leaves one thing: presets!. Generator/Reaktor has a very beatiful
> way of managing presets in the panel window. CPS does not have such a
> facility at all yet; it is not obvious to work with presets in an orchestra
> file at first sight. But of course it will have one, but like MAX: only one
> little object, which has references to all visual elements in the subpatch.
> In that special object you can save/load/switch between presets in the
> patch itsself.
Will you be able to "program change" instruments in your orchestra via MIDI as
well ?
> >Also, are you planning a VST2 plugin version of CPS ?
>
> Absolutely! That's one of the things listed online in the 'future directions'.
Excellent. When do we get that ?
> Well, Reaktor has some advantages and disadvantages compared to CPS, in my
> humble opinion. First the positive things. Graphically, Reaktor looks
> really great; I know it is not a legal argument, but it sure is true. Also,
> it sounds great too; it has really very great analog synthesizers as
> examples! Furthermore, it is also available on the Macintosh, and it
> already has a user base because it exists for a few years now (including
> Generator). On the conceptual level, I think the great thing of Reaktor is
> the way it handles polyfony. There is just one object (Voice Combinator)
> that combines all voices of an oscillator into a mono signal, after which
> it continues normally. In CPS (and MAX), you have to duplicate the
> oscillator and let is be played by MIDI then (in CPS you can eventually
> make an array of oscillators by the way).
Fair enough.
> A real disadvantage of Reaktor is the lack of graphical feedback. In CPS
> you can place a 'numberField' or any other Display object in your
> calculation at any point, and by doing so see what's going on (not only
> controlRate value's but also audio signals). Believe me, that is a relief!
I agree it's a good thing, but reaktor does have it too (in any case Generator
1.5 had it) : if you let your mouse wander over a wire you get it's value
(control OR audio). Also they have VU-meters for graphical feedback, plus a
"scope" module to see the shape of the signal.
> Another disadvantage is that there are no simple math objects like
> comparisation. Ever tried 'if (x>3000)' in Reaktor? (You can do this, but
> it's n-o-t very obvious). This last thing makes it almost impossible to use
> Reaktor for doing Csound like things, also caused by the fact that you do
> not know for sure what happens inside a each module. Another thing is that
> it has no plugin architecture at all; you cannot program your own new
> modules, and also not a graphical interface for it too of course.
It's true they have only rudimentary maths and no plugin architecture.
> Conceptually, it doesn't have low-level MIDI like CPS does, so you cannot
> use it for algoritmic composition for example. There's no way to manipulate
> MIDI at all!!
Not as such, but as what they call control signals (which are events just like MIDI)
> Well, CPS is also capable of delivering pretty low latency,
What latency do you get inputToOutput when you use your PC running CPS as a
hardware effect with a basic sb 16 card for example ?
> and it uses as
> much CPU time as Reaktor does.
How does cps compare with current sfront cpu-wise BTW ?
> CPS adds a few minor other concepts as well
> (like dynamic number of I/O at runtime, so there are no 11 objects to
> multiply signals in CPS, but only one '*', etc.)
Good thing.
> CPS costs $125, and
> Reaktor $469 (Generator $298 as well as Transformator).
That's a good argument ;-)
-- Greetings, Michel ......................................................................... Michel Jullian Directeur General email exbang@wanadoo.fr Exbang Industries S.A. Mas Chauvain route de Villeneuve tel +33(0) 499 529 878 Maurin 34970 Lattes France fax +33(0) 499 529 879 .........................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 11:46:37 EST