Subject: MAX Digest - 7 Feb 1999 to 8 Feb 1999 (#1999-47)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 00:00:03 -0500
From: Automatic digest processor 
Reply-To: MAX - Interactive Music/Multimedia Standard Environments
     
To: Recipients of MAX digests 

There are 12 messages totalling 533 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Copyright of MAX Patches and Objects (2)
  2. hardMAX (2)
  3. computer music controversy
  4. do-it-yourself sensor devices (3)
  5. computer music philosophy #1
  6. repetitive bla bla bla
  7. hardMAX 2
  8. MAX-Netscape-Plugins-Graphics-ShockH

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

Date:    Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:53:36 +0100
From:    Vincent Puig 
Subject: Copyright of MAX Patches and Objects

>Date:    Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:57:02 -0800
>From:    dudas 
>Subject: Re: Copyright of MAX Patches and Objects

>I seem to recall that this dilemma can be solved by saving the patch for
>the composition as a collective with the ircam modules embedded in the
>collective and/or make a standalone application from the patch.  That way
>the composition could be distributed to performers, although the individual
>modules would not be accessable for potentially unauthorised re-use.  There
>should be no problem distributing what you make using the forum msp
>objects, as long as you do not re-distribute the forum objects themselves.
>I believe Stephen Kay's Mega Max externals have a similar license.
>
>Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
>-R
>

You are absolutely right.

Vincent Puig
IRCAM
1 place Igor Stravinsky
75004 Paris
France
Tel: 01 44 78 49 59
Fax: 01 44 78 15 40
email : puig@ircam.fr

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

Date:    Mon, 8 Feb 1999 10:19:17 +0100
From:    Vincent Puig 
Subject: hardMAX

>> h a r d M A X
>>
>> the basic idea:
>> build a dedicated DSP-Box (or maybe use something existing) and write a
>> cross-compiler to fuel it with MAX/msp patches from a Mac (or, well, PC)
>>

>What you're describing sounds very similar to the KYMA system developed at
>the University of Illinois, and Commercially available - but it will always
>be cheaper and much easier to use an existing OS/CPU as a host -- even if
>you do all your DSP in an external box
>

It is also very similar to the old Ircam Signal Processing Workstation
(ISPW), where MAX is the programming interface with DSP on dedicated
boards. Our experience is that to be able to market DSP hardware you must
be fast and rich (in order to make large investment, upgrade it and sell at
list 1000 units), only large companies succeed. But if you dont intend to
have a large commercial but technical success (like ISPW, Kyma, AD
CSoundcard, Mars,...)

Vincent Puig
IRCAM
1 place Igor Stravinsky
75004 Paris
France
Tel: 01 44 78 49 59
Fax: 01 44 78 15 40
email : puig@ircam.fr

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

Date:    Mon, 8 Feb 1999 10:59:14 +0100
From:    Vincent Puig 
Subject: Copyright of MAX Patches and Objects

>Date:    Sat, 6 Feb 1999 17:31:28 +0100
>From:    Peter Castine 
>Subject: Re: Copyright of MAX Patches and Objects
>

>Richard, Vincent: I was not aware of any requirement that materials be
>put in the public domain when submitted to the IRCAM FTP server. I think
>I would not be the only software developer with serious reservations
>about such a requirement. My work _is_ freely distributable, and the
>licence is free of charge, but there are some (very minimal) restrictions
>on use (all documented in the "Read Me"s). But that ain't PD.

You are right Peter. There is a clear distinction between Public Domain and
freeware. I confirm that the IRCAM FTP public site is open to both and that
it is important that users look at the documentation or ask the authors for
rights to use or re-distribute which vary a lot when it is Public Domain
(usually you can re-distribute commercially except if it is a special
licence like GPL) or when it is freeware (usually you cannot redistribute
commercially).

Vincent Puig
IRCAM
1 place Igor Stravinsky
75004 Paris
France
Tel: 01 44 78 49 59
Fax: 01 44 78 15 40
email : puig@ircam.fr

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

Date:    Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:31:40 +0100
From:    Jeffrey Burns 
Subject: computer music controversy

Art for Art's Sake

1. Right to Err

Art
for art's sake
is an error
which must
be defended
against the errors
in whose name
it is repeatedly
attacked -
for freedom's sake
for truth's sake
for art's sake

2. The Leftist Ivory Tower

Art
for art's sake
is criticized
most strongly
by those
who want
revolution
for revolution's sake

Erich Fried

translated by Jeff Burns

http://www.snafu.de/~jeff

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

Date:    Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:38:58 -0500
From:    David Crandall 
Subject: Re: do-it-yourself sensor devices

On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Frederic Murray wrote:

> Mmmm, Stephen, I am particularly interest about the last thing.
> Anybody have link, books, articles or personal experiences about
> do-it-yourself sensor devices ?

Just checked this and it appears to be current:

http://www.timedia.com/physical.html

dc

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

Date:    Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:44:22 -0000
From:    David Bianciardi 
Subject: Re: do-it-yourself sensor devices

On 2/8/99 4:59 AM, Automatic digest processor wrote:

>However, there are many on this list who have spoken before of
>do-it-yourself sensor devices, and hopefully they can again post
>some information for you.

well, I'd love to help, but then it wouldn't exactly be DIY ;)

only kidding of course...
there are a ton of relevant posts available in the archives, and I'd also
be glad to discuss your questions on the list, as i'm sure others are...

can you be more specific as to your interest/requirements?  once you get
your application ideas together, and figure out what kind of sensing you
need to do, you'll also need to determine how you'll get that sensor
output into Max...  broadly speaking, all these devices will output an
analog (variable) or digital (on/off) signal, which needs to be digitized
and serialized as RS232, MIDI, or (yes) ADB for input to Max.  there are
several digitizing units available through manufacturers including
my company on this list and elsewhere.

if you're an EE or accomplished buff, you can very easily slap something
together.  if you're simply handy w/ a soldering iron, there are even
kits available...

regards

David Bianciardi
tech@idrc.com

212.353.9087
212.353.3947 fax
______________________________________________
IDRC || 415 Lafayette St || NYC, NY 10003-7000

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

Date:    Mon, 8 Feb 1999 10:52:53 +0000
From:    Michal Seta 
Subject: Re: computer music philosophy #1

>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:45:00 +0000
> From:    Mathius Shadow-Sky 
> Subject: computer music controversy #3
>
> I am very surprised that musicians who should be concerned by this text,
> to question their musical activities, DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN !

Did you consider that some musicians are able to question their activities
without
your text?

> I thought that MAX community was more intelligent than for
> example Cubase community [I have nothing against Cubase community, I
> used Cubase myself]!

If you think that the Max community is intelligent (although I think that
perhaps
you're refering to the individuals that make up the community rather than
the
community itself...) wouldn't you consider that they have already thought of
these
things?  And maybe even answered them already through their own writing on
this
subject, program notes for some of the music or, better yet, through the
music
itself.

>
> I hope to create a debate around these serious questions.
>

As you've probably noticed the people on this list are mostly performers,
composers, programmers and most importantly artists.  I think that this
debate
would mostly be suitable for musicologists.

If you want to do an exercise in musicology consider the following:
    there are about 700 members on this list.  Go visit their web sites, go
to
their shows, buy their software/CDs/music, read all the liner notes, some of
them
write books/articles so read them all.  Analyze their music.  That's
probably the
most important thing to do.  Then you can organize all that info and
probably write
a book that will answer all the questions you have been asking 3 times.  And
we'll
all be happy to read it.

And one more thing.
It appears to me that most artisits prefer their art to talk for itself so
they
don't have time not interest to write about it.

And it doesn't take much intelligence to know that...

>
>
> Goodby

let it be so.

Michal

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

Date:    Mon, 8 Feb 1999 18:49:14 +0100
From:    Robert Henke 
Subject: repetitive bla bla bla

Dear Mathius Shadow-Sky,
if i like to have repetitions, i write repetitive music. I see absolutely
no reason to post a long text on this list for three times. This is
disgusting. Post your mail at the cubase list the next time. Why should i
discuss any musical/political/social/... topic which someone i do not know
??? To give you that
wow-they-are-so-intelligent-and-educated-at-the-max-list feeling? No way.
Buy one of my CDs and we can talk about my music.The new CD ("intersate" (
EFA 10951-2 ) )  deals with the phenomena of additional sounds  between
percussive noises in a regular pattern and how two white male guys are
fighting which the cords and why a melody is not political correct if its
not  Mozart or The Beatles. During the making of this CD we have been
thinking a lot about the political situation in germany  and that social
adventure called the max list, but i am proud to say that no one will hear
it on the final  record.

cheers, rob.

---------------------------------------------
 m  o  n  o  l  a  k  e  /  i  m  b  a  l  a  n  c  e
 a division of  imbalance computer music
 www.monolake.de       www.imbalance.de
----------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:34:11 +0200
From:    jose manuel berenguer 
Subject: Re: hardMAX

>Subject: hardMAX
>
>> h a r d M A X
>>
>> the basic idea:
>> build a dedicated DSP-Box (or maybe use something existing) and write a
>> cross-compiler to fuel it with MAX/msp patches from a Mac (or, well, PC)
>
>
>What you're describing sounds very similar to the KYMA system developed at
>the University of Illinois, and Commercially available - but it will always
>be cheaper and much easier to use an existing OS/CPU as a host -- even if
>you do all your DSP in an external box

well, not always the use of a computer is a good idea. if the box is
cheaper than a G3 or G4 + MAX software it should be very useful. when you
think on a multimedia evironnement which should run during, say, a year, in
an exhibition context, it's quite expensive to buy a last generation mac.
if you are thinking on multimedia works to be sold to some customer,
particular or institutional, you could offer quite cheapper prices if you
had a hardMAX box.

as actually i'm building my circuits  my self, involving sensor and
actuators devices, to control my environnements, i'd be very happy to know
that such a think as hardMAX exists. MAX is already a standard language.
You can implement very sofisticated algorithms that you couldn't put in a
microcontroller without a lot of quite complicated circuitery that you must
desing each time you are thinking on an standalone (without computer)
multimedia 'sculpture' ...

a thing like a box talking MAX, with standard audio/video/MIDI/net/SCSI
inputs and outputs with a lot of 0-5V inputs and a lot of 5V or so outputs
to control actuators, should be seen as a very nice tool for multimedia
artists.

as Ed Hartley says, i'd like hear more about hardMAX.

jose manuel

___________________________________________________________________________
Jos=E9 Manuel Berenguer

Coclea.
tel/fax 34-93-2857150.  tel/fax 34-972-795002
jmcoclea@intercom.es http://usuarios.intercom.es/coclea

Orquestra del Caos. tel 34-93-3064137. fax 34-93-3064113
caos@cccb.org http://www.cccb.es/caos
___________________________________________________________________________

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

Date:    Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:52:34 +0100
From:    Sukandar Kartadinata 
Subject: hardMAX 2

OK, I guess I should clarify a few things.

I know the many problems that the hardMAX project would impose. I also know
the sentiments many people have about standalone-(single)-rackspace units.
There have been many more or less successful designs and much more
discussion about building new ones. One might argue that the benefits of
these devices have rather gotten less with all those nice PBs, audio cards,
and flatscreen monitors around. Not to mention the fabulous software that
is out there.
So why bring it up again ? Maybe I just want to hear that criticism for a
final time to "exorcise" the hardware fetishist in me, but I think there
are a few reasons left that remain valid. I think most of them have to do
with timing - e.g. there's people out there that still use the ispw because
of that.
But of course the question remains: is it worth all the trouble ? That's
why I wanted your opinion.
(now what really puzzles me here: why is it that all the critcism goes to
the list while most of the positive remarks are sent to me privately ?!?)

I'll go on by answering some of the remarks:

re Steve:
1. Sorry - cross-compiling was the wrong word, I wonder what got in me.
What I meant was a scheme similar to MAX-fts (or NeXT-ispw (or 68040-i860))
with object code for the target system for every MAX object (or probably
rather a subset). This would require some sorta access to MAX's internal
workings of course.
2. could you maybe explain that $40000-$80000 number to me ? Without
knowing the application it remains rather meaningless to me. Having said
that, I should add that I am well aware that it's not about the $9 chip and
that 'cost' is most likely not the only possible benefit
3. I don't get your iMac polemics. Every computer's got certain technology
embedded - for the iMac it's an extra modem, (infrared), (USB), and a
display (compared to a desktop G3). That hardly makes it more embedded with
regards to audio applications I'd say.

re David:
I have to agree with most of your remarks, except that the 56k was
certainly not outdated-the-moment-it-was-specified but survived almost a
decade.
A possible reliability advantage might be that once your code is running
within an embedded system it won't get affected by a wrong set of system
extensions and the like. Anyway, I knew why I put that question mark behind
'higher reliability' in my original post.

re Vincent:
Designing hardware is cost intensive indeed - one reason for my post was
that I was hoping to be pointed to an already existing DSP box that could
be used for the project.

re Johnny:
1. afaik KYMA uses an array of 56k processors. As MAX/msp is floating point
I'd rather use something based on AD's SHARC.
2. Thanks for the Marathoncomputers link
3. with regards to new speedy G3,4,5's - note that 'faster' was not on my
list of possible benefits.

more later,
Sukandar

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sukandar Kartadinata
Custom Music Technology
Hagenauerstr. 6, 10435 Berlin, 030-44051219
http://members.xoom.com/Sukandar/
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

Date:    Mon, 8 Feb 1999 18:03:40 -0800
From:    Jim Wood 
Subject: MAX-Netscape-Plugins-Graphics-ShockH

Hello,

In response to subjects of the last two weeks

1. What about this MAX netscape plug-in, what exactly
would this allow, just transfer of patches, or actual
play of patches in a MAXplay kind of thing like
Dxr-Shockwave?? Sounds good I want one.

2. GEM graphics etc. If its made for SGI/Linux is it
possible to make Mac version. Is anyone up to doing
this??

3. In the meantime running with the devil could an
extra for Director/Flash allow us to run MAX/msp
behind some flashy graphics??
( this is not intended to show support for Director
and Mulimediaist Desktop Garaphic Design Hell, but in
an attempt to open Max up to a wider audience- eg non
MAXer mutimediaists who expect shiny buttons and
flashing pants, if you get me. Shame theres no
antiorp to berate these comments, still I give myself
PERMISSION TO VOMIT

cheers

Jim Y Wood
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

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

Date:    Tue, 9 Feb 1999 04:12:52 +0100
From:    "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Do=E9nado?=, el Ur" 
Subject: Re: do-it-yourself sensor devices

> Mmmm, Stephen, I am particularly interest about the last thing.
> Anybody have link, books, articles or personal experiences about
> do-it-yourself sensor devices ?
>
> Thank you
>
> Fr=E9d=E9ric Murray
> Frederic.Murray@etu.mus.ulaval.ca

http://www.itp.tsoa.nyu.edu/~alumni/dano/physical/physical.html

http://www.parallaxinc.com//
http://www.paia.com/midibrn.htm
http://www.paia.com/drumsens.htm
http://www.paia.com/touchsw.htm
http://www.infusionsystems.com/
--

d
*

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

End of MAX Digest - 7 Feb 1999 to 8 Feb 1999 (#1999-47)
*******************************************************