Subject: MAX Digest - 3 Jun 1998 to 4 Jun 1998
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 00:00:41 -0400
From: Automatic digest processor 
Reply-To: MAX - interactive music/multimedia standard environments
To: Recipients of MAX digests 

There are 9 messages totalling 265 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. continue this thread in private email. (4)
  2. powerbook I/O - recursions
  3. Numerical properties of random and clocker objects
  4. MAX Digest - 2 Jun 1998 to 3 Jun 1998 (2)
  5. MIDI sample dump


Date:    Wed, 3 Jun 1998 23:40:01 -0600
From:    =cw4t7abs 
Subject: continue this thread in private email.

>From:    Matt Wright 
>This is getting pretty esoteric; perhaps we should continue this thread in
>private email.



Date:    Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:47:15 +0200
From:    Robert Henke 
Subject: powerbook I/O - recursions

Dear maxers,
i think the following extracts from an e-mail conversation with David
Zicarelli might be interesting for you:

>That would be paradise: If I need MAX on stage i pick the Powerbook, if I
>need MSP with more than one stereo I/O, i just coonect some external box =
>the computer.... wow. Possible ?

E-mu makes a PC Card audio interface/synth, but they've been resistant
to making a Mac driver for it. Maybe if they had a lot of people
bugging them about it.

>I tried to made recursive stuff like feeding back a portion of a  unit
>delayed  signal  ( 0.022 ms with the comb~ object @ 44.1 kHz )
>to achive some kind of integrator functionality. Or I tried to modulate =
>delay time of a tapin/tapout~ object with a fraction of  the output =
>to achive non linear distortions.
>Both patches  did not work; after connecting the feedback patchcord i =
>got silence.

One trick that might work is to route the feedback connection
through a send and receive (not send~ and receive~). Or use
another tapin~/tapout~ with a delay set to 0. This appears to
MSP as a "break" in the feedback loop, even though it isn't.

>Hmm, the whole msp thing is working blockwise ? I cannnot set the I/O
>Vector size down to 1 sample ?

A signal vector size of 1 sample will be feature in the 2.0 version
of MSP.


You may be forced to use something that deals more elegantly
with recursive algorithms. The problem is with MSP is that if you
specify a recursive algorithm graphically, it is extremely hard
to convert into a series of steps in a DSP algorithm. Specifying
it in a text language doesn't have the same ambiguity. At least
that's how I understand the problem.

David Z.


Date:    Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:14:10 +0200
From:    Peter Castine 
Subject: Re: Numerical properties of random and clocker objects

lossius asekd:

>How "random" is the random object?

The random object, as far as I can tell, uses the standard C library
random() function. It could also use the Mac toolbox _Random trap, but I
rather doubt it. In either case, behavior is pretty much the same, both
use essentially the same algorithm, described as early as in Knuth's _The
Art of Computer Programming_. The function ain't all that complex: it's a
multiply, add, and modulo by numbers that are mutually prime.

Yes, they cycle at the latest after 2^32 (or possibly even 2^16)
iterations. Assuming one random number per second, the latter cycle gives
you a repetition after about 18 hours. The former only after 136 years.

Whichever implementation of random() drives the random object, neither is
a *heavy-duty* random function. If you want really heavy-duty random()
that statisticians and mathematicians can love, look for an algorithm
called Ultra (which I have on a Zip drive somewhere, but you'll probably
find it on the 'net faster). Not available as a Max object yet, but some
bright spark might want to take this on.

Otherwise, you could bang two different random objects at different time
intervals (say, 3 to 1), and munge the results together (say, take the
arithemetic or geometric mean). The distribution will no longer be
absolutely flat, but you'll postpone recycling by a factor of 65000,
which might get you through the night.

>Next question: What happens to the output from the clocker object when
>the upper limit of integer representation is reached? I've figured that
>after about 24 to 25 days counter object hits the highest integer value
>that the object is able to represent numerical (assuming it to be the
>same as for integer Number Box: 2147483647). What happens next: return to
>zero, maximun negative value, or a potential crash?

Normally, adding one to MAX_LONG results in MIN_LONG. The processor
doesn't give a pickled farthing about bits overflowing in the ALU (other
than setting a bit or two in its status register). Some software will
check for integer overflow and generate a run-time error, but Max tends
not to do that sort of thing.

Why not send a counter a set 2147483647 message, then bang it once to see
what happens?


Peter (quoting von Neumann, who also said "Anyone attempting to generate
random numbers by deterministic methods is in a state of sin.")

---------------- ----------------
Dr. Peter Castine               It would appear that we have reached the       limits of what it is possible to achieve
                                with computer technology, although one
should be careful with such statements, as they tend to sound pretty
silly in five years.                                 -- John von Neumann


Date:    Thu, 4 Jun 1998 04:37:18 -0400
From:    Stephen Kay 
Subject: continue this thread in private email.

>>This is getting pretty esoteric; perhaps we should continue this thread=

>>private email.


Any esoteric stuff dealing with C Code and writing MAX objects is AOK
with me!

Stephen Kay


Date:    Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:50:14 +0200
From:    Roby Steinmetzer 
Subject: Re: continue this thread in private email.

>>>This is getting pretty esoteric; perhaps we should continue this thread=
>>>private email.
>Any esoteric stuff dealing with C Code and writing MAX objects is AOK
>with me!

=C7a veut dire quoi AOK?

Roby Steinmetzer
Luxembourg, Europe


Date:    Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:15:57 -0400
From:    Ed Hartley 
Subject: Re: MAX Digest - 2 Jun 1998 to 3 Jun 1998

> I always felt that writing an ed/lib with MAX was kind of like swatting
> flies with a brick, but what do I know? If the tools work, they work.

Though it's only 3/4 done, my editor for Sound Process on the Ensoniq Mirage
been well worth the effort. That OS is a whole swarm of flies and I don't
I'd have the patience to use it from the front panel.

Ed Hartley


Date:    Thu, 4 Jun 1998 12:21:34 -0400
From:    Stephen Kay 
Subject: Re: continue this thread in private email.

>>Any esoteric stuff dealing with C Code and writing MAX objects is AOK
>>with me!

>Ca veut dire quoi AOK?

>Roby Steinmetzer

AFAIK (as far as I know) AOK is not an actual acronym, but simply
a (not so contemporary) idiom where AOK =3D very much OK.

Stephen Kay


Date:    Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:44:19 -0400
From:    James Garfield 
Subject: MIDI sample dump

If you took a standard MIDI sample dump and collected it in Max, what
could you do with it?  I figure you could at least capture it with a seq
and save the file, then use the seq to send a sample dump back to the
sampler.  This seems good for library purposes.

So what more can you do with a MIDI sample dump?  I'd at least like to
be able to convert it to a usable Mac audio file format, and vice versa.


James Garfield                            
BadRat Multimedia Productions          


Date:    Thu, 4 Jun 1998 22:52:27 +0200
From:    marc ravelomanantsoa 
Subject: Re: MAX Digest - 2 Jun 1998 to 3 Jun 1998

Hello Maxers, Hello Opcode support,

I've got problem with my Max Key Disk . Let me explain :

I planned to drift to HFS plus (with Mac OS 8.1) . So, I backed up all of my
files from my HD (HFS formated) onto a JAZ disk.
Then, all my Max files are on the JAZ disk, and when I tried to launch Max
that Jaz disk) , I 've got this message :
     " this copy of Max 3.5 requires authorization to run. Please insert the
diskette.          "

OK, thereby I understood that I made a mistake : I dind't do the removal
(De-authorization) on my old HD before backing up. What I thought at that
is that I lost one of my two installation shots, but one shot left ....

After inserting the expected diskette, I 've got the frightening message :
    "Error while validating the authorization count. The authorization count
your key disk has been corrupted, possibly by a pirating utility. You may
this diskette as a key, but you can't perform any installations or
removals.             Result code : 107        "

The situation is that I cannot anymore nor authorize nor deauthorize any
One would say that I can use it like this , using from now on the key
a key. But the deadly fear is that the diskette must remain unprotected and
exposed to all sort of damage.  I may someday loose definetly this key .


Do my  mistake condemn me to be put in the same category as pirates .

thaks in advance for advices and help.


End of MAX Digest - 3 Jun 1998 to 4 Jun 1998