It could be, it's just a matter of someone writing the code :)
That's why I proposed the 'cleansound' library.
.hc
On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:01 PM, bsoisoi wrote:
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
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from
scarcity." -John Gilmore