| |
| Create Digital Noise Forum Index » DIY, Physical Computing, and Advanced Topics » Pick your favorite open source sound toolkit |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
What's your favorite cross-platform, open source (or free) visual/audio toolkit?
| Pure Data (Pd) |
| [ 7 ] 87% |
| |
| Processing (processing.org) |
| [ 1 ] 12% |
| |
| Other (discuss below) |
| [ 0 ] 0% |
| |
Total Votes : 8 |
|
| PeterKirn |
 Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:06 pm |
 |
|
Site Admin
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 822
Location: New York, NY
|
I'm currently working on a MIDI primer, and while I spend a lot of my time doing this sort of thing in Max/MSP, I want to create some examples in open source software that anyone can use. Not only that, but I'd ideally like to do some visual manipulation, since I think it expands people's understanding of MIDI when they realize you can use it for more than just the obvious function (notes and whatnot).
My short list is currently Processing and Pd; I'm especially interested in Processing as it's easy to install, and is pretty clean to code for eye candy, which then runs in a browser. The only big disadvantage is that Processing requires an external library for MIDI support.
What would you use as a teaching tool? |
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| groffhibbitz |
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:32 pm |
|
|
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Wow, I've never heard of processing before! It looks cool! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| PeterKirn |
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:52 pm |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 822
Location: New York, NY
|
Processing on its own doesn't do much with sound and synthesis, but check out the Sonia library:
http://sonia.pitaru.com/
It does give you some sophisticated tools, by integrating the JSyn library. I have to play with it a bit, hopefully over the coming months. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| thesimplicity |
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:19 pm |
|
|
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 122
Location: Tucson, AZ
|
Max/MSP is probably the app for just about anything that combines technology and creativity, but I've found the learning curve to be quite high (especially the MSP portion). I've never used PD, but my understanding of it is that it's just another extension of the Max programming language (Max/FTS, ISPW Max, etc).
Processing, on the other hand, is a dream. It's easy to learn, easily expandable, and insanely portable. I use it for just about everything now, from video and sound work to even my english and math homework (nothing says 'A+' more than generative poetry). The community is especially helpful and most people release the source to their projects... check out www.processinghacks.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| PeterKirn |
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:29 pm |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 822
Location: New York, NY
|
Yeah, I'm heavily, heavily leaning towards Processing, even though I respect Pd. Processing is much simpler, while very capable at the things on which it's focused, and still retaining very logical extensibility with Java (in a way that's actually simpler than extending Pd and Max.) Pd is a cousin of Max, incidentally, but since there is no real Max programming language, the relationship is more complex. You can now develop externals for both Pd and Max in C++, with a specialized extension.
Now I'm going a little off-topic (well, until createdigitalmotion happen), but have you done any 3D work with Processing? I see how to create basic quads, but I'm confused on simple topics like texture-mapping and opacity. (Then again, I'm not really sure this is the right application for Processing just yet . . . may have to stick to Jitter on that!)
I do believe in the right tool for the right job, even though learning multiple tools = much less sleep. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| thesimplicity |
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:49 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 122
Location: Tucson, AZ
|
PeterKirn wrote: Now I'm going a little off-topic (well, until createdigitalmotion happen), but have you done any 3D work with Processing? I see how to create basic quads, but I'm confused on simple topics like texture-mapping and opacity. (Then again, I'm not really sure this is the right application for Processing just yet . . . may have to stick to Jitter on that!)
My understanding of texture mapping is that you would reference an image in the setup() phase, something like im=loadImage("texture.jpg");, and then do a void draw() with the texture called in the shape. For example:
Code: void draw(){
background(0);
translate(300,300,0);
beginShape();
texture(im);
vertex(0,0,1);
vertex(-100,0,1);
vertex(-100,100,1);
vertex(0,100,1);
endShape();
}
I think that's how it works, at least in P3D. The only real problem with processing is keeping up with the syntax of different builds, it gets pretty confusing trying to figure out what code works in what version.
As far as I know there's no built in opacity control for 3D, but I could be wrong.[/code] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| sdbrown |
| Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 1:55 am |
|
|
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 17
Location: San Diego, CA
|
As an academic, it's hard to resist the urge to pound my fist about a subject, but I think I'm going to have to sit this one out. It's really all about who your target audience is. If it's people who are familiar with programming (especially Java), then Processing is almost certainly the way to go. On the other hand, if someone isn't really a programmer, then Pd/GEM is probably a good idea, since it's much more immediately visual, aural and interactive.
Edit: on second though, if the goal is to teach MIDI, I would argue for Pd. MIDI is essentially a bunch of messages, which fits very nicely with the Pd metaphor of message passing. I handle MIDI data from other applications and from my external controllers with 2 or 3 Pd objects at most. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| chrisoshea |
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:46 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 10
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| vade |
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:42 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 40
Location: New York, NY
|
PD wins hands down. While I dont create music (or sounds at all, I do visuals), PD is vastly superior to Processing: One word - Garbage collection.
I do visuals, mostly in Jitter with OpenGL, but ive played with Java JOGL and OpenGL in Processing. Every app ive seen made and compiled with Processing that is in any way shape or form used for live sound or video will stutter, due to VM memory cleanup. You can create threads, which can minimize this, but you really have no control over garbage collection.
Plus, GEM is worlds faster for OpenGL than P3D or OpenGL under Processing (and faster than Jitter for many things as well)
PD started out for doing Audio (in fact, MSP is PD, read the about box), and has really really great things built in, like Data Structures, which can be used as a timeline for scoring (see this for an example) , which really blows Max's timeline/detonate etc out of the water.
While Processing is great for showcasing work online (and I have a soft spot for it), PD really kicks so much ass. Now if only it werent so fucking ugly... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Concretedog |
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:17 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 30
Location: North Wales UK
|
PD rocks.... I've been circling PD for months now but never got down to installing it as it looked so complicated, however this week I did...now I'm still a newbie in arms but it isn't half as terrifying as i thought it might be....following through the included tutorial patches the first night and then last night hacking a few of the patches together and working out how to get them to interact with my controllers etc. Its given me a good grounding and I already have some ideas for things I want to build from scratch.
Incidentally I come from a non programming background and I feel that the much besmirched synthedit has served as a great training for me for PD it not only taught me a lot about synths it kinda got me used to working in a modular/object oriented way.
Seen as this is my first post I should say keep up the good work at CDM it is a fantastic site and keeps me inspired in the mountains of Wales UK. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| shamann |
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:12 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 45
Location: Toronto
|
It's a tough call. I'd be inclined towards pd mostly because I don't have the Java runtime installed, nor do I plan to any time soon (I'm sure I'm not alone in that).
I like pd, but I have heard lots of folk express apprehension about using it, getting scared away by the black and white line drawing-ness of it all.
Processing looks neat, but I imagine most people haven't heard of it.
Anyone familiar with Max/MSP shouldn't have to hard a time dealing with pd. |
_________________
SIGHUP ------- SIGHUP blog ------- SIGHUP on MySpace |
|
| Back to top |
|
| PeterKirn |
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:23 pm |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 822
Location: New York, NY
|
Processing just doesn't seem quite ready for prime-time to me yet. I'm particularly disappointed in the video handling -- it doesn't work at all in Linux, and it relies on a somewhat buggy QuickTime implementation for Windows and Mac. (Mac versions seem almost completely broken by QT7 -- probably Apple's fault, but that's still a big problem!) And the cleanup issues sound pretty major. On the other hand, it's very young, and it shows a lot of promise, so I'll be interested to check up on it every few months.
I have to say, you've all convinced me to spend more time in Pd. Now, I do have to take issue with the "MSP is Pd" thought -- it's just not quite true. I think "cousin" or "sibling" might be more apt than, say, identical twins raised in different surroundings. Maybe we just now need an open source aesthetics team to pretty the thing up? 
But I'm really intrigued by promises of GEM performance. Can you use GEM to process videos on shaders/slabs a la Jitter? I've just started to do this with Jitter, and it's a lot of fun, especially when you start mixing DV streams at full frame. See today's post:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2006/04/24/johnny-dekams-live-visuals-rig-on-thomas-dolby-tour/
If I wound up getting better performance out of other 3D routines in Pd, though, well, that would . . . interest me. Quite a lot.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| PeterKirn |
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:28 pm |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 822
Location: New York, NY
|
I should also add, I started this as a "favorite tool" thread, but I think if you are serious about live performance, you may find yourself using more than one tool. It'd be great to spend all your time focused entirely on one, but that certainly doesn't work for me. Different ideas and projects sometimes demand the strengths of a particular tool. It sucks up a lot of time dealing with another learning curve, but I've found it to be worth it.
For instance, I just did a performance over the weekend where I wound up using Flash Pro 8. It did a lot of the sorts of things for which I'd normally rely on something like Jitter, but it turned out to be more efficient dealing with the camera input and pumping out animation. Things will get even better when Adobe finally lets ActionScript deal with integers and not just floating point, in the soon-to-be-released AS 3. (That's bizarre, I know -- any of you with a programming background probably just dropped your jaw. But it shows that even the older tools on the market are still really maturing.)
Maybe in 10 years all this stuff will be at a level of maturity that we don't have to use so many tools. Maybe not. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
The time now is Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:00 pm
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
