Is there anything ground breaking on the horizon?

[NAS]

Hmmmmmmmmmm
urs i guess you didn't even bother to read the post before spouting, Nobody bashed anybody for coding, We are trying to stop the SE bashers, Why so defensive eh ?, And what special powers aexactly do you possess to know outright that non of these people defending SE have any coding skills ? , You make some very valid points but totally disregard what has already been posted, You have shown just one more time that programmers will disregard SE straight out of the bag, Really it just shows your stupidity, Perhaps you should have a rest from all the numbers and actually do something musical, Too much logic doesn't make jack a nice boy.
Its a shame really because theres no way i would ever buy anything off such a snob, Luckily for me i suppose you dont make anything i want but some of the SE coders do.

[nuffink]

Hehehe,

it starts to get entertaining on a pretty funny level...

Anybody bashing coding C (or C++) as being anything like programing a patch would hurt many developers' feelings. If we took it serious, that is

Oh... and we do all use the source code examples from music dsp...? I didn't know that...

I mean, what do these guys actually know about development at all?

Here's an example of what you might take into account: On C level we have means to organize the actual layout of the memory. So, we can set up the memory structure in a way that the access is a continuous stream during the process rather than random accesses to different areas. We can keep more stuff in the cpu cache, and thus we get a lot more performance than any high level approach can achieve. And that's only 1 example out of tens I could give.

We can then invest the performance we save into things that would be too slow for high level approaches. Speaking for me, I built a filter that keeps a pretty constant volume regardless of resonance and frequency. This is not just a simple trick or a limiter in the feedback path or anything. It's beyond anything you can copy/paste from the web (show me a filter code example with 300 lines of code...). For me personally (and my customers), this is a ground breaking achievement into which I invested weeks of research.

It's true however that many developers build up libraries and tools in order to make the development process more comfortable. Does this mean that C-level developers build the same instruments and effects again and again, just with another gui and another routing of modules? - Nope, I have yet to see that.

It's rather so that we want to achieve a certain sonical/musical character when we start a new project. Regardless if it's an emulation of something vintage or if it's something new, most of the dsp algorithms that we already have from previous projects are pretty useless at that point. Sometimes it can be done by tweaking the stuff we already have, other times we have to start from scratch.

Nonetheless, it's pretty cool to reuse code that has proven stable. For instance when it comes to stuff like saving/loading presets, MidiLearn, management of synth voices, loading bitmaps for the gui, there's no point in reinventing the wheel for every plugin again.

Sure, SynthMaker looks intrigueing and it certainly solves many problems that other high level approaches have. But honestly, it's not an option for those who develop crossplatform and/or those who develop still faster in plain C.

Cheers,

Urs

Ah yes, C++. The power, the limitless possibilities. What shall I write?
Something unique. Something world changing.

I know, a filter plugin.

[whyterabbyt]

Nu Audio Science quoth
For someone to say that nothing original can come from SE shows a complete and utter non understanding of object orientated programming, SE you use blocks of compiled code to create plugs, C++ you use blocks of uncompiled code to create plugs

Umm, 'blocks of code' is not equivalent to object-oriented code; if you're claiming that it is, then I think you perhaps dont understand object-oriented programming yourself. Or else please explain how the SE environment (not SDK) implements methods and inheritance.

And it has absolutely zero to do with originality (in SE, C++, or any other method of plugin creation) whatsoever.

[Urs]

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Hmmmm, so I'm an idiot and a snob because I bash SE? When did I bash SE? A quote please? As far as I can see, I havn't even used the word...

Isn't it rather so that you defended SE etc. by making comparisons to C++ that are, uhm, misleading to say the least? You say that C developers use "blocks of premade code". With all due respect, that's a generalization that doesn't hold, and I commented on that, no more no less.

You better get your facts straight before calling somebody names

So, to give you that certain satisfaction, here's some bashing: As you won't buy any of my software, you can as well try to recreate it in SE. Good luck.

Cheers,

Urs

[SJ_Digriz]

Nu Audio Science quoth
For someone to say that nothing original can come from SE shows a complete and utter non understanding of object orientated programming, SE you use blocks of compiled code to create plugs, C++ you use blocks of uncompiled code to create plugs

Umm, 'blocks of code' is not equivalent to object-oriented code; if you're claiming that it is, then I think you perhaps dont understand object-oriented programming yourself. Or else please explain how the SE environment (not SDK) implements methods and inheritance.

And it has absolutely zero to do with originality (in SE, C++, or any other method of plugn creation) whatsoever.

Amen, not to mention that NO ONE BASHED SE. All I said was that subtractive synths aren't going to be "new". Worse yet the building blocks all have the same basic OSC and Filters so they end up sounding the same. Maybe SM has fixed some of that but it looks to me that anyone capable of taking advantage of that aspect of SM would be capable and more inclined to do it themselves in C to control the efficiency or give themselves more control over the memory manipulation.

Which brings us back to the point. A subtractive synth, no matter how it is written is not "new and exciting" unless of course it is just a feeder section to some other aspect of a plug that is.

I already admitted, per Bones prompting, that it can be a "personal discovery" type of new. But, I also debunked that as in-valid as well. SE itself isn't new nor will anything made with it be exciting. The actual personal knowledge gained in the process can be no doubt.

LOL nuffink, although ironically funny getting the dig in on Urs, filtering is an extremely complex type of coding that is far more involved than most people realize. One of the common misperceptions is that a 12db LP filter is exactly the same as every other 12db LP filter. That just isn't the case. In SE it is which may lead to that assumption. I always laugh when people say "the filter in x synth suck". Most of the time I don't think they can even say why they say other than it is "cool" to say it. Like Microsoft bashing.

[nuffink]

LOL nuffink, although ironically funny getting the dig in on Urs, filtering is an extremely complex type of coding that is far more involved than most people realize. One of the common misperceptions is that a 12db LP filter is exactly the same as every other 12db LP filter. That just isn't the case. In SE it is which may lead to that assumption. I always laugh when people say "the filter in x synth suck". Most of the time I don't think they can even say why they say other than it is "cool" to say it. Like Microsoft bashing.

I know. However, as an old school procedural programmer who's trying to get up to speed with modern programming techniques I'm amazed by the lack of ambition in this thread.
This isn't specifically a pop at Urs but if nobody ever makes another subtractive synth or part thereof I wouldn't spill any tears.
This industry is so young and the possibilities for computer assisted music are so immense yet we have a thread on the subject in which 90% of the respondants can't see beyond another flavour of synth.
Pitiful.

[stefancrs]

Amen, not to mention that NO ONE BASHED SE. All I said was that subtractive synths aren't going to be "new". Worse yet the building blocks all have the same basic OSC and Filters so they end up sounding the same. Maybe SM has fixed some of that but it looks to me that anyone capable of taking advantage of that aspect of SM would be capable and more inclined to do it themselves in C to control the efficiency or give themselves more control over the memory manipulation.

But it's way more boring to do it in C. I moved from c++ to SM, and I didn't do it "just because". I've been coding c++ for about 8 years, and developing efficient dsp code has never been easier than since I moved over to SM. But then, it's probably a matter of taste as well.

I don't use any prebuilt oscillators or filters in my SM stuff (which I am yet to release, sigh, lots of other things has been hindering me), I have audio rate modulations all over the place (there are no non-audio-rate modulations in what I'm currently working on) which, imo, makes up for something quite different. It has been made before, but not in quite the same manner as far as I know.

We are OT

Anyway, you can do totally new, totally fresh stuff in C/C++/ASM/Delphi/SM/SE/Reaktor/DeltaSP or whatever.

[tetraplan]

Anyway, do new ways of arranging count as "anything ground breaking on the horizon"?
If so, I don't think anyone has mentioned the IXI stuff yet. So, um, I will, then.

Someone mentioned AudioMulch's Meta-surface, which is so great it makes me want to cry.
Still haven't gotten my head round actually building a useful patch with it, though. Better get that sorted before june.

Groet, Erik

[Sicklecell666]

Anyway, do new ways of arranging count as "anything ground breaking on the horizon"?
If so, I don't think anyone has mentioned the IXI stuff yet. So, um, I will, then.

Someone mentioned AudioMulch's Meta-surface, which is so great it makes me want to cry.
Still haven't gotten my head round actually building a useful patch with it, though. Better get that sorted before june.

Groet, Erik

WHOA!! Look who's back!

[SJ_Digriz]

....I don't use any prebuilt oscillators or filters in my SM stuff....

That is EXACTLY my point. Those 2 fundamental components are the linchpins of subtractive synthesis. The sound and the filtering of the sound. If you used the canned versions of either it will always sound the same.

But for the 93rd time, I'm NOT bashing SE or SM as a process.

[stefancrs]

....I don't use any prebuilt oscillators or filters in my SM stuff....

That is EXACTLY my point. Those 2 fundamental components are the linchpins of subtractive synthesis. The sound and the filtering of the sound. If you used the canned versions of either it will always sound the same.

But for the 93rd time, I'm NOT bashing SE or SM as a process.

Why would it sound the same? If my usage of filters is based upon letting the oscillator modulate the filter parameters, no doubt, it will sound way different when the filter is just controlled via an ADSR + LFO. I don't even have to use filters, I can just use FM or PD (still using the built in oscillators, or my own). I don't think I'd call my synth subtractive just because it has got filters that you can use if you want to.

If saying that "using the same oscillators and filters will lead to the same kind of sound" or whatever would be true, the same would apply for any other fundamental building "block" as well, right? As far as I know, all c++ applications are using the same fundamentals, otherwise it would be a different language.

I know that you're not bashing, but I do think that you're wrong. I don't use my own oscillators to get "my own sound", I do it because it's more fun.

[kurasu]

simpsons already did it

[McLilith]

This thread started simple enough. One person wondered it there were any breakthrough technologies that might soon show up for the music software consumer. Somehow it turned into this hideously dreary tag-team grudge match between SE/SM/Reaktor users and Asm/C/C++/Delphi users.

Come on, guys. Can't we move on to something less tiresome than this old fued?

Maybe we should simply have told the original poster: "Sorry, but there's nothing new on the horizon."

At least it would have been simpler, and when something did appear, he would have had a very pleasant surpise.

Come on, let's all agree to be friends and quit this pointless bickering. We're all adults who should know that everyone has different tastes and different needs. What suits one person certainly isn't expected to suit everyone. I'm sure we have far more important things to do, than compare SynthEdit and SynthMaker to traditional computer programming. I mean, this whole fued is pointless, considering that everyone knows that real synth designers build hardware.


take care,
McLiith
--
...currently enroute to an undisclosed shelter, deep underground.

[Markleford]

You have shown just one more time that programmers will disregard SE straight out of the bag,

And you have shown that you're ignorant about how code really works, yet you strike a self-righteous stance about it as if you have a clue.

You generalize and stereotype more about programmers in the process of whining about how SE is generalized and stereotyped.

It's all coming across as self-rationalizing and pompous. Do you actually think you're changing opinions and winning friends with this "oppressed groundswell" blather?

Really it just shows your stupidity,

I don't think you have any right to call people stupid.

- m

[aMUSEd]

This article has some interesting stuff and links in it - Soundloom, the CDP and Ircam stuff look interesting amongst other things:

http://www.sonicartsnetwork.org/ARTICLE ... drian.html

http://www.bath.ac.uk/%7Emasjpf/CDP/CDP.htm

and Metasynth 4 once again makes me wish I had a Mac.

http://www.uisoftware.com/MetaSynth/index.html