Subject: MAX Digest - 25 May 1999 to 26 May 1999 (#1999-158)
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 00:00:00 -0400
From: Automatic digest processor 
Reply-To: MAX - Interactive Music/Multimedia Standard Environments
To: Recipients of MAX digests 

There are 13 messages totalling 441 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. buffer~ clears
  2. Mac Vs PC (is the Mac system becoming more and more unstable?)
  3. Mac/PC
  4. ambisonics
  5. incompatibility with netscape ?
  6. Mapping/Intelligent response from MAX programs
  7. tapin~/out~ (oh no not again!)
  8. knob boxes -- another alternative.
  9. V1
 10. MacOS stabillity
 11. Sound positioning
 12. fft~ and transposing..second try
 13. Measuring system performance?


Date:    Tue, 25 May 1999 21:08:50 PDT
From:    Chris Tignor 
Subject: buffer~ clears

Not long ago, during the tapin~/tapout~ exchanges, it was David Z., I
believe, who said that everything that can be done with tapout~ can also be
done with record~ and play~ except for the clicking that results when new
material is recorded over the seams of the old material.  I am highly
interested in getting rid of this clicking for a patch that envolves on the
fly sampling and thought maybe that by *instantaneously* clearing the buffer
immediately prior to recording one might able to remove the clicks.  It
seems, at least, on my setup, that the "clear" message sent to buffer~
doesn't work, even in the help screen.  No error message is produced but the
buffer~ remains uncleared.  The workaround of reading in a blank buffer
simply takes to long for instantaneous, on the fly recording, as I imagine
poke~ing (or is it peek~ing?) in all the neceesary samples for a 7 second
buffer~ at 44.1khz would.  I'm hoping my original idea of sending buffer~ a
clear message would be quicker but, of course, I have no idea.  Trading
between two different buffers~ and wiping the dormant one out with the
slower "read" approach seems like too much overhead.  Any answers?


Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit


Date:    Tue, 25 May 1999 22:46:45 -0600
From:    Adam Schabtach 
Subject: Re: Mac Vs PC (is the Mac system becoming more and more unstable?)

>Which brings me out from my long silence to ask the users in this list
>whether they share my gut feeling that the MacOS is becoming more and
>more unstable with the more recent versions?

In my experience: emphatically not. OS 8.5 is far more stable than
any prior version of OS 8.x or System 7.x which I've used. (I didn't
spend much time with 7.6 or 7.6.1; I jumped from 7.5.3 to 8.0.) I'd
say that 8.5.1 and 8.5 are about equally stable, aside from the few
obvious differences (e.g. bug fixes in AppleScript).

I've recently installed 8.6 on one of my machines, but haven't yet
used it enough to have any gut feelings about vs. 8.5.1.


Adam Schabtach         


Date:    Wed, 26 May 1999 10:57:02 +0200
From:    »yvind Brandtsegg 
Subject: Mac/PC

I've been using an old PB540 (System 7.1) with Max for a long time, and
I feel it's quite stable after all. I also use a P2/233 PC for audio and
video applications. I think that the main point concerning stability is
Knowing Your Machine. All computers I have ever used have had their own
pecularities, and learning how to deal with these is the way to go for
more effective workdays. I am oftentimes tempted to switch to the mac
for all audio applications too, but my best reason for staying where I
am platform-wise, is that I know my current setup well. It helps me do
what I want to do, and it crashes less than once a week if I'm not tring
to do something real stupid.

As for computer controlled life support systems, I just hope that I'll
never need one ...

Oeyvind Brandtsegg


Date:    Wed, 26 May 1999 10:25:55 +0100
From:    Lawrence Casserley 
Subject: ambisonics


Sorry a mis-type  - should be:


Lawrence Electronic Operations - Tel +44 1494 481381 - FAX +44 1494 481454
Signal Processing for Contemporary Music - email


Date:    Wed, 26 May 1999 16:27:22 +0200
From:    Andreas Weixler 
Subject: Re: incompatibility with netscape ?

>Date:    Mon, 24 May 1999 23:46:13 +0000
>From:    Pablo Silva 

>all kinds of starting-from-zero procedures. And then we have to deal
>with Netscape... which is totally incompatible with MAX and OMS in my

Hi Pablo, what is the incompatibility with netscape ?

I donnot ask cynical, I am really like to know. As I wrote to the list I
have a lot of problems with installing MAX 3.5.8 on a 7200 with System
7.5.5, noone could really solve this.
I have to say by now Opcode did answer...

Andreas Weixler, composer
directors board of the Austrian Society of Electroacoustic Music - GEM
Studio for Advanced Music and Media Technology Linz/Austria - SAMT
coming up:
08.06.99 Klangnetze - Graz
26.06.99 Projekttheater Wien


Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 00:37:11 +1000
From:    Stickland 
Subject: Mapping/Intelligent response from MAX programs

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,   I am looking for MAX programs/compositions/patches that =
incorporate a degree of intelligent response by the program to performer =
input.  Eg. Mapping of the acceleration or speed of controller movement =
to note duration.  This is for study into the musical structure of =
interactive music.  Any guides to webpages or comments relating to =
intelligent response in MAX compositions is also welcome.  Yours =
sincerely, Blake Stickland.

Content-Type: text/html;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,   I am looking for = MAX=20 programs/compositions/patches that incorporate a degree of intelligent = response=20 by the program to performer input.  Eg. Mapping of the acceleration = or=20 speed of controller movement to note duration.  This is for study = into the=20 musical structure of interactive music.  Any guides to webpages or = comments=20 relating to intelligent response in MAX compositions is also = welcome. =20 Yours sincerely, Blake Stickland.<= /DIV> ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BEA7D9.0EF176C0-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 17:47:33 +0100 From: Lawrence Casserley Subject: tapin~/out~ (oh no not again!) Hi All This is not another rant - I promise! :-)> But I thought people might be interested in the progress on my problem. It isn't _really_ solved, in the sense that I don't entirely understand the problem yet, but I have found what appears to be a fix. To recap, I have one tapin~ feeding eight separate tapout~s. The outputs of the tapout~s are fed through *~ envelope controllers (plus some other processing, but I eliminated that from my enquiries. The eight outputs are mixed and passed through a *~ level control (controlled by MIDI pedal) and back to the tapin~ as a feedback path. It appears that this last is the root of the problem. I have made a temporary fix by inserting another tapin~/tapout~ with a short delay (100ms) between the gain control and the main tapin~. This now makes funny noises on startup, but does work. Without the inserted delay, it simply makes the whole signal chain from the tapin~ onwards inoperative. Once I get it going (by editing part of the signal chain) it is fine. I conclude (rightly or wrongly) that there is some condition during startup where the *~s can pass signal around the system before becoming 0s. This causes the eight ouputs to feed back into the tapin~ without restraint, even if only for a very short period, presumably leading to an unstable state that shuts down in self defence. I assume the 100ms delay is just enough to stop it giving up the ghost. Incidentally, the *~s are all in gain1~ abstractions from the Jimmies lib. For those who don't have Jimmies that means the second input of the *~ is driven by a linedrive/line~ combination. Does this make sense? Does anyone know a _proper_ solution? Another possibly relevant point - all the eight tapout~s are initialised to 100ms. Would a longer initial value be likely to help? Or setting them all different? All the best Lawrence -- Lawrence Electronic Operations - Tel +44 1494 481381 - FAX +44 1494 481454 Signal Processing for Contemporary Music - email ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:49:50 -0800 From: Tim Perkis Subject: Re: knob boxes -- another alternative. In all this discussion of PIC chips, sensors, special hardware controllers, etc. I'd like to acquaint people with a nice, little known option for a midi knob box: the Kawai MCB-10, the"Macro Control Box" made for use with the K5000. It's a compact little unit with 16 knobs tightly spaced in a 4x4 grid; an extra rotary switch allows you to set the midi channel. I haven't used one, and I'm not sure which MIDI controller message is sent, but do any of us MAX users really care? Kawai ( will sell them to you for $199, which is also pretty cheap for this kind of thing -- you couldn't really build your own that much cheaper. T _______________________________________________________ T I M P E R K I S home: (tel/fax) +01 510 528 7241 at Interval Research Corporation: +01 650 842 6281 _______________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 18:19:49 +0000 From: andy gracie Subject: V1 Alex i wish i'd had the benefit of your message while we still had the device to play with!! in the end we sacked the Max triggering part and used the machine on the fly manually. still a breathtaking piece of kit. i'd be very interested in seeing your P2 patches. andy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 13:08:05 PDT From: "A. Scott Piccotti" Subject: MacOS stabillity >Which brings me out from my long silence to ask the users in this list >whether they share my gut feeling that the MacOS is >becoming more and more unstable with the more recent versions? >I remember things becoming steadily worse after version 7.5... Actually, it has been my observation that things have been improving lately. I maintain a our macs at work, and I think that the current release (8.6) is the most stable that is has been in quite a while. I agree, 7.5 was a stability nightmare. 7.6 made it a bit more useable. Then when 8 came out, it fixed a lot of the problems with 7, but carried with it all the bugs that come with a major overhaul. Since I've put 8.5 on our machines at work, they almost never give us a hard time (except for some funky video problems!). 8.6 seems to be minor touch-ups that they didn't have time for in the 8.5 release. Of course, all this is taking place within a digital imaging workflow, not a MIDI/audio one. But we do put quite a strain on our machines and network. YMMV. scott _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 22:08:09 +0200 From: Werner Funk Subject: Re: Sound positioning Automatic digest processor schrieb: > Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 03:42:20 +0200 > From: Tim Boykett > Subject: Sound positioning Entries found in my CMJ database: sound space processor (2 speakers) CMJ 15/91/2,S.94 Spatial Sound SP-1: Raumklang,proportional reverb,Dopplereff.,2...8 speaker= s) bewegt sound aus mono-Quelle in 2 od.3 Dimensionen (MIDI,joysticks, paramet= er) CMJ 12/88/4,S.65 Raumklang, -wahrnehmung Heftthema CMJ 19/95/4 *********** CMJ 07/83/3,S.6 CMJ 14/90/4,S.59 Spatializer: Raumposition CMJ 21/97/2,S.115 APB Sigma 1 Surround Matrix Mixer CMJ 22/98/3,S.73 Sch=F6ne Gr=FC=DFe von der Cannstatter Altenburg! Werner Funk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:55:24 -0700 From: David Beaudry Subject: fft~ and transposing..second try Posted this a last week but haven't received any response yet. Is this something that is at least possible, and if so, where should I look for more help. Thanks. > Hello all: > I was reading/searching thru the max digest archive and came across a > similar question that I have, however the archive wasn't recent enough for > me to get the answer (if there was one). The question was: is there a way > to transpose a note using fft~/ifft~? For example, I have my clarinet sound > analyzed by fft~ (by way of adc~)...before sending it out to ifft~, I want > to tranpose it up a 3rd, for example, then send the new note out thru dac~. > I there a way to do this? > > Thanks in advance for any help. > > David Beaudry > UCLA Dept. of Music > UCLA Center for the Digital Arts ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 19:10:50 -0700 From: Edward Spiegel Subject: Measuring system performance? I just dropped by the Cycling74 web site and saw the MSP system performance table and I was wondering if anyone has a nice little test program they would share for coming up with such stats. I have a 9600/300 with Korg 1212 card and would like to get a nice comparison of the actual performance of the machine under different system configurations (7.6.1 through 8.6) so that I can eke out as much DSP performance as possible. >From the table it looks like the MOTU 2408 has very low overhead compared to other cards. Does this jibe with folks' experience. Thanks, Edward ------------------------------ End of MAX Digest - 25 May 1999 to 26 May 1999 (#1999-158) **********************************************************