Subject: MAX Digest - 22 Jun 1998 to 23 Jun 1998
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:01:08 -0400
From: Automatic digest processor 
Reply-To: MAX - interactive music/multimedia standard environments
     
To: Recipients of MAX digests 

There are 9 messages totalling 249 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. lists of lists (3)
  2. Working with lists of lists?
  3. PCMCIA card on Powerbooks
  4. MAX Digest - 21 Jun 1998 to 22 Jun 1998 (3)
  5. lists within lists

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

Date:    Mon, 22 Jun 1998 21:32:31 -0700
From:    Les Stuck 
Subject: lists of lists

=A1ola pablo!

>lists of lists...

well, jeepers. i guess a coll is a list of lists, so a list of colls
could be a list of lists of lists. (you could use the "refer" message
to each coll in order to switch the li'l buggers. that way you could
just feed the whole contraption a list of numbers which would switch
your thingamajig to the correct colls.)

> splitting these [lists] in a fool-proof manner?

if you find yourself wanting to combine lists and split them, etc.
consider jim mccartney's list objects and/or peter elsea's Lobjects, both
included with max 3.5, if i'm not mistaken.

just be aware that no one has ever used lists of lists of lists before
in the history of music, so that maybe your aesthetics are listing to
one side.

<

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

Date:    Tue, 23 Jun 1998 01:19:39 -0700
From:    James McCartney 
Subject: Re: lists of lists

The Pyrite object can do processing of lists of lists.
It does not store them in the patcher though, if that is what you want.

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

Date:    Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:47:45 -0000
From:    Nick Rothwell 
Subject: Re: lists of lists

> just be aware that no one has ever used lists of lists of lists before
> in the history of music,

Not even Liszt?

--
        Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL            contemporary dance projects
        http://www.cassiel.com            music synthesis and control

        NOTICE - this vessel has triple screws - keep clear of blades

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

Date:    Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:28:19 +0200
From:    dudas 
Subject: Re: Working with lists of lists?

Dear Pablo (and other list-processing-oriented max-ers out there),

here's one idea for working with lists of lists...

use a symbol to seperate the sub lists:

1 2 3 x 11 22 33 44 x 100 200

I'll think on it and let you know if it can be implemented in an ergonomic
fashion.

-Richard

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

Date:    Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:33:22 +0200
From:    Hans Tutschku 
Subject: PCMCIA card on Powerbooks

I got this mail on another list and remember similar questions some
weeks ago on the Max-list. Just for info:

>Emu has a SPDIF PC-Card but it looks like they aren't going to do a Mac
>driver.
>But it might not hurt if a lot of people begged them....hint hint

Also, Digigram is about to demonstrate their PCXpocket PCMCIA card with
drivers for the Macintosh at IBC in Amsterdam and AES in San Francisco,
late September.
For technical specifications, go and see:
http://www.digigram.com/products/pocketad.html

Hans

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

Date:    Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:36:39 -0600
From:    "Pablo Silva-Escuela Nacional de Musica,
         UNAM" 
Subject: Re: MAX Digest - 21 Jun 1998 to 22 Jun 1998

Hi:

Steven Kay just answered:

> The coll object stores a list at each address.  Therefore, you can
> store many "lists of lists".  Check it out...

Yes, I am actually using a coll object already! What I am trying to get it
to is to store several lists (a list of lists) assigned to the same
address, so I could fire them with a single instruction and have several
precisely defined notes per address. I apologize if I didn't make my
question clear. It all has to do with trying to avoid setting up multiple
copies of an alredy complex patch... just to get poliphony, which I should
get with adequate storage in a coll or like object. Or maybe the detonate
object could be an alternate route? Yet I need several "extra" parameters
per note, more than I see in the detonate docs.

Thanks

Pablo Silva
Coordinator, Electronic Music Lab
Escuela Nacional de Musica, UNAM, Mexico

hpsilva@servidor.unam.mx
______________________________________________________________________

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

Date:    Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:08:48 -0000
From:    Nick Rothwell 
Subject: Re: MAX Digest - 21 Jun 1998 to 22 Jun 1998

> Yes, I am actually using a coll object already! What I am trying to get it
> to is to store several lists (a list of lists) assigned to the same
> address, so I could fire them with a single instruction and have several
> precisely defined notes per address.

How about using indirection? Use the initial address to access a list
of symbols, each of which is a coll address.

(I presume that coll will do that, and that you can do the list
traversal. I don't make much use of colls any more.)

--
        Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL            contemporary dance projects
        http://www.cassiel.com            music synthesis and control

        NOTICE - this vessel has triple screws - keep clear of blades

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

Date:    Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:24:44 -0400
From:    Stephen Kay 
Subject: lists within lists

>Yes, I am actually using a coll object already! What I am trying to get =
it
>to is to store several lists (a list of lists) assigned to the same
>address, so I could fire them with a single instruction and have several=

>precisely defined notes per address.

If you want to store multiple specifications for a note in the same
list, it's easy to do (*if the lists are the same size*).

For example, assume 4 ints per "chunk", the following list at a
single address in a coll stores 4 notes (pitch, vel, 2 data bytes):

1, 60 127 0 0 64 127 1 1 67 127 2 2 71 127 3 3;
   ^          ^          ^          ^

Simply output the list through James McCartney's "listiter" object
with an argument of 4, and it will chop the large list into 4 item
chunks and spit them out one at a time.  Listiter is available =

from Ircam in the FAT objects section I believe.

If you wanted to store lists of different lengths in one list, =

then you could try Richard Dudas' suggestion of separating the =

lists with symbols, or use a scheme such as putting the length =

of each list before (between) each list, i.e.:

2, 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0;
   ^       ^     ^           ^

Then, using "slice" (also in the James McCartney ListOps =

collection): As the list is read out, slice off the first number =

and use it to set  another "slice" object, which then slices off =

the correct piece, after which you then slice off the next length =

identifier, use it to set the slice, etc.

Stephen Kay

---------------------- The MegaMAX Collection ----------------------
 Over 30 Max objects for the creation of more professional looking, =

         feeling, and functioning patchers and applications.
                     http://www.musikinetix.com
                         sk@musikinetix.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:06:05 -0700
From:    David Zicarelli 
Subject: Re: MAX Digest - 21 Jun 1998 to 22 Jun 1998

Roland Cahen & Ruth Sefton-Green  writes:

>I have had recently a very interesting exchange with Allen Cronce President
>of PACE Anti-Piracy about authorisation losses.
>I think that you (and Opcode) may be concerned by his very nice answer
>folowing...

[answer deleted]

The updated key disk available that has version 3.5.8 or later
uses "InterLok" copy protection, while the older 3.5 or 3.5.1
disks use "PACE III" copy protection. If you're concerned about
losing authorizations, it's probably worth updating your key
disk and using the version of Max that corresponds to it available
on the Opcode web site.

I've heard about very rare problems with the new "InterLok" copy
protection where it won't authorize on a machine whose hard disk has
somehow transformed itself into a weird state. Reformatting the hard disk
usually solves the problem. I think fewer than one in a thousand
people will see this sort of thing.

Finally, I will say out of complete self-interest that if
everyone with copy protection problems started to contact PACE
instead of the manufacturer of the copy protected software, you
can forget about seeing any improvements to the copy protection.
I'm pretty certain that Opcode has all the relevant information
about PACE as it relates to your software.

David Z.

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

End of MAX Digest - 22 Jun 1998 to 23 Jun 1998
**********************************************