Subject: MAX Digest - 16 Feb 1999 to 17 Feb 1999 (#1999-56)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 -0500
From: Automatic digest processor 
Reply-To: MAX - Interactive Music/Multimedia Standard Environments
To: Recipients of MAX digests 

There are 10 messages totalling 288 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. computer music controversy, request #1 (2)
  2. layers vs. encapsulation (2)
  3. coll: call, cole, c=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=f8ll?=
  4. detonate: thanks
  5. New Coll Features
  6. dimming/hiliting patch cords
  7. QTVR
  8. MSP + 5400


Date:    Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:42:39 EST
From:    RBMengMail@AOL.COM
Subject: computer music controversy, request #1

In a message dated 2/17/99 5:01:30 AM, LISTSERV@LISTS.MCGILL.CA writes:

<< Keep in your mind when you answer to the controversy you talk to

Also keep in mind, when we choose not to answer, it is because we are
disinterested and would prefer not to be the target of personal,
or political attacks and lengthy diatribes on non-MAX matters.  There are
other forums for these topics.

Many people here will bend over backwards to offer opinions and assistance
MAX related matters at great expense of their time and energy.  Do not be
offended by the lack of response -- people value their time -- you should


Date:    Wed, 17 Feb 1999 01:32:48 -0500
From:    Nicholas Longo <71477.2332@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: Re: layers vs. encapsulation

Subject: Re: computer music controversy, request #1

Lets call a vote


Date:    Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:53:31 +0100
From:    Peter Castine 
Subject: Re: coll: call, cole, c=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=f8ll?=

On around 16-2-99 9:13, dudas said something like:

>Much more important than all this, however, is how to pronounce "coll":

Well, it's a truncation of collection (at least, so much have I presumed
since forever). Funny thing to truncate the pronunciation, since most
native English speakers say something like co-lec-shun (short initial 'o'
and the 'l' firmly attached to the second syllable, hyphenation rules

Still, I try to match the vowel in coll to the beginning of collection.
No reason to, see what we Americans did to fidelity in 'Hi-Fi'.




Date:    Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:35:30 +0100
From:    Todor Todoroff 
Subject: Re: detonate: thanks

Thanks a lot to David Zicarelli and to Carl Faia for sending me the last
version of detonate.
Todor Todoroff


Date:    Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:14:53 +0100
From:    Thierry Fournier 
Subject: layers vs. encapsulation

> >A couple of people have mentioned this, but I feel that encapsulating
> >into sub-patchers is a much more powerful tool than layers (you can
> >re-use sub-patchers).
> >
> >Also, there's nothing like tidy programming to clear up those nests of
> >wires. Seriously: when you can no longer see which boxes are connects to
> >what boxes, it's time to encapsulate.
> i agree - but i experience one notable exception, and that is when i am
> designing interfaces in max. in this case i often have a cluster of
> packed graphical objects with supporting paraphenelia that quickly leads
> spaghetti gridlock.

Hello maxers,

Apologize my english.

I completely agree with that point concerning the interfaces. Even if the
levels of a patch
are strictly encapsulated. The question of the interface becomes obviously
the more
important if you are designing collectives or stand-alone interfaces for
shows :
there is always an actual
contradiction between the logical disposition of the patches and the clarity
density requested for  their
visual appearance.

Apart from the ugly "spaghetti style", only  two sorts of interfaces seem to
possible for the moment :
- clear objects with smart disposition, that reveals spaghetti mess when you
edit the patch (very  frequent,
but not effective if you want to make the patch evoluate; moreover, the
disposition of the
patch's high-level can be confusing when you work on the patch long after );
- accurate and logic "Maxy"disposition (according to the patch itself) that
constrains you to deal with much screen space than necessary (several
etc.), and shows a visual appearance which is not so clear for people
who are not familiar with Max.

I think that  versatility is always necessary at the the low-level of a
however, the final interface is very often designed for a single use or a
particular situation (show, concert, etc.), and doesn't need to be
versatile. So
"layers" could be IMHO very useful...


Thierry Fournier - composer
72 bd de la Villette 75019 Paris France
Tel 33 (0)1 4803 3240


Date:    Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:44:59 -0500
From:    Michael Sweet 
Subject: Re: New Coll Features

Richard Dudas wrote:

> another cool coll trick strongly promoted by David Wessel here at CNMAT is
> to have a group of named colls, and use the 'refer' message to an unnamed
> coll somewhere in the works of the patch. this lets you switch from one
> data set to another at lightning speed!  You could even have a named coll
> containing the names of different named colls ad infinitum. I suppose this
> would be analogous to using pointers (and pointers to pointers) in a
> programming language like C.

Here's another suggestion - a fourth coll output that would output a bang if
didn't find a match within the coll.

--Michael Sweet


Date:    Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:19:13 -0500
From:    Stephen Kay 
Subject: Re: dimming/hiliting patch cords

Nick Longo: =

>would be nice would be to "dim" all cords except the ones connected to
>selected objects.

I have to say that this is the best idea I have heard recently with
regards to the whole "layers" idea.  Although it might be even better,
rather than dimming unselected patch cords, to simply hilite or
draw the selected cords in a different color.

Either way, picture it:  you select an object, and all patch cords
going from that object to another object(s) become a different color
or more easily visible.  I think that would be a great improvement,
and I bet not very difficuly to implement.

>But because I use use segmented
>patch cords, my patchers tend to look like some kind of telephone routin=
>matrix with bundles of cables side by side and on top of each other.  =

Not to start a debate on patch cord style (well, ok, start one), but
I myself have found that a liberal mix of both segmented and unsegmented
patch cords provides the best clarity.  I have seen programmers (and
I briefly went through this stage) who insist on segmenting every
single patch cord, and then piling them up or lining them up next to
each other.  I agree - it looks very tidy and circuit-board-like.
Unfortunately, you cannot tell where anything goes without clicking
on a patch cord.  Sometimes, a single diagonal patch cord stretching
across half a patcher is way more intuitive then the same thing nicely
wrapped around and tunnelled in between other objects.

Stephen Kay


Date:    Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:00:27 -0500
From:    sean paul zitello 
Subject: QTVR

Well I've struggled to get up and running on MAX
externals but I'm just getting nowhere.  Between
MPW and CodeWarriorLite I can't even compile any
of the examples that come with the MAX CD?  I
really don't want to have to spend another 300-400
dollars on real CodeWarrior just to figure out if
that will work.  I've already wasted 300 on
X<>Pose which is fast on video but difficult to do
production work with and incredibley slow with MAX
running alongside.  So I'm begging for some price
quotes to do a few seemingly simple things with
MAX externals.

1.  Picture: scaling, transparents
2.  Graphics: setting non-system color tables &| >
256 colors.
3.  movie:  QTVR with controls for the basic VR
4.  MSP: scope: round scalable display, fatter

any takers out there?

sean paul zitello


Date:    Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:47:34 +0000
From:    Andy Gracie 
Subject: MSP + 5400

is anybody running MSP on a PPC 5400/180 or similar?
if so, what kind of performance are you getting out of it? i'm wondering
wether i should go ahead and register my version or wait a few months until
i get myself a G3. i'm not really into sticking a G3 card into the old dear.


End of MAX Digest - 16 Feb 1999 to 17 Feb 1999 (#1999-56)