Well, why couldn't Pd be as "clean", processors are fast enough these
days, and one could always crank up the sample rates of their DSP
blocks. Isn't the internal resolution at least 32bit anyway (is it
64bit under any circumstances?)
cheers, ~brandon
On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to
Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one
sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles.
so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? marius.
Because it's optimised for real-time performance.
Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was
designed for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU
speeds.Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a
raytracing scene in 3DMax.In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we
could say "what did you expect?!"
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Use the source
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list