From:
                                                            4/24/97 11:00 PM
Subject: MAX Digest - 23 Apr 1997 to 24 Apr
1997To: Recipients of MAX digests 

There are 11 messages totalling 429 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. the 603ev (PowerBook) processor, was: Re: 68K vs. PPC (2)
  2. Redirection and audio
  3. Which is better: bangbang 1 or button?
  4. PCI Serial Port Cards & Mac to Mac = MIDI communication
  5. Connecting two max sessions
  6. Academic Max
  7. on going back to go forward (3)
  8. 800 numbers (Was: Product advice)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 24 Apr 1997 01:10:57 -0400
From:    Gordon Adams 
Subject: the 603ev (PowerBook) processor, was: Re: 68K vs. PPC

Responding to one point of this topic:

>>This is how you can make yourself really miserable. I bet native PPC
>>Max 3.5 will run more slowly on one of those upgraded Powerbooks
>>than 3.0 on a 520.
>
>Ah. Not a particularly fast PPC in the upgrade, then?

There are actually two upgrades available.  One is Apple's upgrade, which I
think runs around $300 these days.  This will give you a 100mHz 603ev
processor and a net of +4MB RAM (there are 8MB soldered on to the
motherboard).  According to Apple's propaganda, this board would upgrade
you to the equivalent of a 5300; I assume that this means that it would
have the same quirks that David Z. (I think) and others have complained
about, hence, perhaps, the first-person-quoted-above's comment.

However, Newer Technologies has their own upgrade, which, for about $660
right now (that's the best price I've seen - Mac Zone's latest catalog,
incl. rebate for trade-in of old board) gives you a 167mHz processor and
the same net +4MB RAM - if you got the bucks, that's a whole lot more bang,
IMO.  Newer tends to make good stuff, but I have no idea how the timing
stability compares to Apple's upgrade...

Does anyone have experience with Max on other PPC PowerBooks? I'd be very
interested to hear from people either with 5xx upgrades or
190/1400/3400/5300/etc.'s, as I too am considering taking the plunge...

Thanks,
Gordon.

.....g.o.r.d.o.n....a.d.a.m.s..................[gordon@voicenet.com]

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:32:39 -0700
From:    David Zicarelli 
Subject: Re: Redirection and audio

"K-) Peter"  asks:

>        1) Is there anyway to redirect the MIDI output of max to another
>running sequencer on the same Mac - i.e. from Max to Cubase, such as via
>OMS or MROS or will they share/look at any common point ?

Any program that supports OMS can use the IAC driver to send data
to and from Max. And with 3.5's support of OMS Timing, programs that
use it (currently only Vision/Studio Vision 3.5 but I assume
Cubase will eventually support it, since Steinberg wrote the code)
can be sync-ed. Or you can send MTC through the IAC port.

>        2) Also will Opcode Max ever support the digital audio objects
>and processing of Ircam Max on the Mac (presumably this is PPC only) ?

My guess is you'll see external objects that do audio without the need
totally new version of Max. PPC 3.5 would be an excellent host for such
things. That was part of the rationale for porting Max to PPC.

>        3) Is there a way to change the look (as in shading, colour,
>size) of the knob or H/V slider objects, such as in Res edit and would
>it be safe ?

hslider and uslider don't use pictures, so there's nothing you can
modify, other than their color, using the Color... menu item.

My question is, how do you pronounce "K-)"? Is it something like
"The artist formerly known as Prince"?

David Z.

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:35:48 -0700
From:    David Zicarelli 
Subject: Re: Which is better: bangbang 1 or button?

"David K. Mason"  asks:

>When generating a bang within a hidden routine,
>which of the following is faster and/or takes up less internal programming
s=
>pace:
>bangbang 1, or
>button?

If the patcher is hidden, they're essentially the same. If not, there is an
extra function call for the button to cause the state to be highlighted,
then a clock execution a few milliseconds later to redraw it off.

David Z.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 24 Apr 1997 01:01:25 -0700
From:    David Zicarelli 
Subject: Re: PCI Serial Port Cards & Mac to Mac = MIDI communication

Pavel Smetana  writes:

>it seems that one of the best PCI card for this is "Smart serial 6" from
>Keyspan (http://www.keyspan.com).  Problem is that this card supports many
>devices ( up to 6) but it communicates directly with "apple communication
>toolbox". I don't know if it's possible to use it with the "serial" object
>in MAX. I don't have it and it cost 4000 francs (800$) in France.
>
>Question is: Serial object recognizes more new ports on this card?
>Maybe we must to ask to the author of this serial object?
>Maybe David Z. knows something more about it?

I doubt that the standard Max serial object will work. However, several
people have written serial objects that support serial ports on
cards. If they feel like sharing, they might come forward.

Pavel goes on to ask:

> And now I have some special question. Do you know somebody if it's
>possible to communicate MIDI from one Mac to second Mac without MIDI
>interface ( only with serial cable)? I know that with 2 interfaces it's
>possible, but it's obligatory?
>1st Mac send MIDI out by serial port to the MIDI interface, from this MIDI
>OUT it's going by the MIDI cable to MIDI IN in second interface and from
>this to the serial port in 2nd Mac. It's possible to make it in different
>way?
>

To use MIDI, you need an interface, because MIDI on the Mac is done
with the SCC chip in "external clock" mode and the interface supplies
the clock. Indeed, that's about all the interface does.

Any standard Mac serial "imagewriter II" cable is a null modem cable.
You can hook up two Macs using it. You can then use my unsupported
aesend/aereceive objects to send data over Appletalk, but Appletalk
is an undesirable real-time protocol. Because MIDI programs are
optimized to handle MIDI, if I were doing this project, I'd send
MIDI between the two computers using two interfaces. If you're
thinking about putting an interface on one of those PCI cards, you
might want to make sure that OMS supports MIDI interfaces on serial
cards. I don't think it does.

David Z.

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:49:04 -0700
From:    David Zicarelli 
Subject: Re: Connecting two max sessions

Bertram Dunskus  asks:

>I haven't been able to find a method of changing the size of the graphics
>window based on external values. Is this impossible? I want to calculate
>the values, based on some configuration and then open the window in the
>right size at the correct position.

I can't think of any way to do this right now, but it's a good idea
for a new feature.

David Z.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 24 Apr 1997 00:59:41 -0700
From:    David Zicarelli 
Subject: Re: Academic Max

Issac Roth < writes:

>Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with MacWarehouse, don't get
kickbacks

>from their sales, etc, although I've always had good experiences with

>them. I don't know if an academic sale cuts into how much money David
Z.

>gets, but I hope he is compensated for sales regardless of the sale

>price. I think the more people that use Max, the better.

Does everyone worry about how much money I make? Stop worrying! Here's

the deal. I don't make royalties on Max. Never have. Never will.

IRCAM makes a royalty on the sales revenue, but not me. There

have been various arrangements that have financed Max development

over the years. I worked on it for almost a year for no money. I've

been an Opcode employee. I've been an IRCAM employee. I've been a

consultant. I did the 3.5 upgrade on a project basis. In other

words, I received a fixed sum of money when I completed the

upgrade.

I don't know if I come off as a money-grubbing capitalist, but I'm

not getting rich off Max. If you want to get rich, there are far
better

ways to do it than writing a music programming language. The one

thing I can say for Max is that it helped finance my completely

unmarketable doctorate.

But enough about me. I think it's great that Issac has revealed

the MacWherehouse academic deal, and I completely agree: the more

people using Max, the better.

David Z.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 24 Apr 1997 01:02:29 -0700
From:    David Zicarelli 
Subject: on going back to go forward

"Patrick T. Rost"  writes:

>Some of us just prefer to simplify our lives, and there are times
>that we must go back to go forward.  I choose to run on a 68000, some
>people go back to nature.  No one should be penalized by capitalism
>for those things...
>I wonder what Miller would say?  Maybe I'll ask him later today what his
>intentions were when he made Max?  Were they to make a usable tool
>for (computer) music? Or to make a quick buck?

First, let me just say that the implications of the last paragraph of
Patrick's message represent one of the most offensive things I've ever read
on this mailing list. As my wife said to me, perhaps implicitly expressing
a tiny bit of exasperation about my career choices, "Some quick buck...it's
been eight years." For more on this subject, see the next message.

I think I should clarify my position as follows: Opcode doesn't
promise that Max 3.5 (or any part of it) will work on a 68000. It
does promise that it will work on a lot of other machines. I have
enough to do trying to respond to the problems people report on
machines that are supported without dealing with fixing problems I
haven't promised to fix.

It's too bad Patrick has had so many problems with Max that
he's had to resort to using 2.5.2 and a 68000, but I don't remember
hearing from him about any of these problems. I've searched my e-mail
and can't find anything.

David Z.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:17:35 +0200
From:    "David K. Mason" 
Subject: Re: 800 numbers (Was: Product advice)

I use a callback service to access 800 numbers in the States from Germany.
Using it has halved my long-distance charges for calls from Germany to=
 Taiwan and to the USA (ie, rather than using German Telekom.)  (I'm also=
 looking forward to the upcoming deregulation here so that I can possibly=
 halve my local and national charges as well!)

BTW the callback service is called primecall.
http://www.primecall.com/

Best regards, Dave Mason
music@tempo.s.shuttle.de
http:/www.s.shuttle.de/tempo/

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:39:25 -0400
From:    Eric Singer 
Subject: Re: the 603ev (PowerBook) processor, was: Re: 68K vs. PPC

David (or anyone for that matter), what's your feeling:  68k Max on a 520
faster or slower than PPC Max on a 100mhz 603?

On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Gordon Adams wrote:

> Responding to one point of this topic:
>
> >>This is how you can make yourself really miserable. I bet native PPC
> >>Max 3.5 will run more slowly on one of those upgraded Powerbooks
> >>than 3.0 on a 520.
> >
> >Ah. Not a particularly fast PPC in the upgrade, then?
>
> There are actually two upgrades available.  One is Apple's upgrade, which
I
> think runs around $300 these days.  This will give you a 100mHz 603ev
> processor and a net of +4MB RAM (there are 8MB soldered on to the
> motherboard).  According to Apple's propaganda, this board would upgrade
> you to the equivalent of a 5300; I assume that this means that it would
> have the same quirks that David Z. (I think) and others have complained
> about, hence, perhaps, the first-person-quoted-above's comment.
>
> However, Newer Technologies has their own upgrade, which, for about $660
> right now (that's the best price I've seen - Mac Zone's latest catalog,
> incl. rebate for trade-in of old board) gives you a 167mHz processor and
> the same net +4MB RAM - if you got the bucks, that's a whole lot more
bang,
> IMO.  Newer tends to make good stuff, but I have no idea how the timing
> stability compares to Apple's upgrade...
>
> Does anyone have experience with Max on other PPC PowerBooks? I'd be very
> interested to hear from people either with 5xx upgrades or
> 190/1400/3400/5300/etc.'s, as I too am considering taking the plunge...
>
> Thanks,
> Gordon.
>
>
> .....g.o.r.d.o.n....a.d.a.m.s..................[gordon@voicenet.com]
>

**********************************
*                                *
*          Eric Singer           *
*    Media Research Laboratory   *
*       New York University      *
*   email: esinger@cat.nyu.edu   *
*  web: http://cat.nyu.edu/eric  *
*                                *
**********************************

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:40:37 -0400
From:    Eric Singer 
Subject: Re: on going back to go forward

David, I'm going back to using my Apple II and I demand you make Max
backward compatible.  And I'll need it on 5.25" floppies, too.

:-)

On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, David Zicarelli wrote:

> "Patrick T. Rost"  writes:
>
> >Some of us just prefer to simplify our lives, and there are times
> >that we must go back to go forward.  I choose to run on a 68000, some
> >people go back to nature.  No one should be penalized by capitalism
> >for those things...
> >I wonder what Miller would say?  Maybe I'll ask him later today what his
> >intentions were when he made Max?  Were they to make a usable tool
> >for (computer) music? Or to make a quick buck?
>
> First, let me just say that the implications of the last paragraph of
> Patrick's message represent one of the most offensive things I've ever
read
> on this mailing list. As my wife said to me, perhaps implicitly expressing
> a tiny bit of exasperation about my career choices, "Some quick
buck...it's
> been eight years." For more on this subject, see the next message.
>
> I think I should clarify my position as follows: Opcode doesn't
> promise that Max 3.5 (or any part of it) will work on a 68000. It
> does promise that it will work on a lot of other machines. I have
> enough to do trying to respond to the problems people report on
> machines that are supported without dealing with fixing problems I
> haven't promised to fix.
>
> It's too bad Patrick has had so many problems with Max that
> he's had to resort to using 2.5.2 and a 68000, but I don't remember
> hearing from him about any of these problems. I've searched my e-mail
> and can't find anything.
>
> David Z.
>

**********************************
*                                *
*          Eric Singer           *
*    Media Research Laboratory   *
*       New York University      *
*   email: esinger@cat.nyu.edu   *
*  web: http://cat.nyu.edu/eric  *
*                                *
**********************************

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:38:31 EDT
From:    Tom Ritchford 
Subject: Re: on going back to go forward

David Zicarelli  wrote:
>First, let me just say that the implications of the last paragraph of
>Patrick's message represent one of the most offensive things I've ever read
>on this mailing list. As my wife said to me, perhaps implicitly expressing
>a tiny bit of exasperation about my career choices, "Some quick buck...it's
>been eight years." For more on this subject, see the next message.

Yes, I just had this argument with someone who was trolling
for "cracks" of Logic... he was claiming that computer music
companies gouge the public.  As I pointed out to him, writing
computer music programs is NOT a good way to make a lot of money...

Max is by far the best supported program that I use.  In comparison,
I have reported many dozens of repeatable, obvious feature
deficiencies in Vision with no response from the manufacturer...
these include really nasty bugs like being (easily) able to create
a file that crashes Vision when you try to open it... (just put
a subsequence inside a subsequence inside a subsequence inside
a subsequence and boom!)

But you can't expect miracles from David, even if he wasn't
supporting this list "for free."

    /t

Tom Ritchford                        tom@mvision.com

    Verge's "Little Idiot" -- Music for the mentally peculiar.
1-800-WEIRDOS                       http://www.weirdos.com/verge

------------------------------

End of MAX Digest - 23 Apr 1997 to 24 Apr 1997
**********************************************