hmm, sine waves are one kind of sound, but musical pieces use more than sinewave generators. if there are really technical and software related dsp differences in max and pd then you would find them more in other objects. the wavetable readers could be different (type of interpolation...) the oversampling techniques could be different, noise generators could be different, internal float precision could make a big difference. on the hardware side: da converters can make a difference. (is it overall true that pd runs on cheaper hardware, using cheaper digital-analog converters creating a richer, more distorted sound?). max could use additional filter magic that we don't know of (no source code available...). marius.
Libero Mureddu wrote:
Hi all, I remember some months ago I did the suggested test using oscs from: Max/MSP, Pd, PWGL, Csound and maybe (not sure anymore), SuperCollider.
Well, they produces the same results. Anyway it was interesting to experience it!
Here attached is the audacity project file with only max and pd; max cycle~ output is shorter so one can hear pd osc~ output starting to play only when the other one is finished. I reversed the phase using Audacity, to be honest, but I don't think this makes the test irregular :-) ciao
libero
Message: 6 Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:57:49 +0000 From: Damian Stewart damian@frey.co.nz Subject: Re: [PD] Pd sounds better than Max? To: reduzierer@yahoo.de Cc: PD-List pd-list@iem.at Message-ID: 47D11FAD.1020000@frey.co.nz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Roman Haefeli wrote:
hey funny... i also heard people saying something similar the other way around.
since the same digital algorithm produces the same results on two different machines or in two different softwares, i think there are only very esoteric reasons to believe, that one sounds 'fuller' (what does it mean technically?) or 'richer' (more harmonics?) than the other. for me this goes to a similar direction as the discussion, if oxygen free, golden plated 8mm-diammeter speaker cables sound better than others (i would rather suspect a difference there than between max and pd).
well, he also said that it was because the [osc~] had a larger table size in Pd than in Max, which would make sense.
my initial assumption was that it was to do bit-depth. i used to scoff at people who claimed 24 bit was better; but then i spent some time in a studio working with 24 bit audio, and, well, you notice. (but both Pd and Max are 32 bit float, right?)
i hear you about the speaker cables; there are differences even amongst digital stuff though. for example when Ableton Live clips, to my ears it clips a lot nicer than ProTools does. (actually ProTools in general sounds very dead - its precision means that you have to work your ass off to get colour into your sound.) and back when i was composing in a multitrack sequencer environment, i remember choosing to use Cubase SX because its audio engine just sounded nicer than any of the other apps of the time (Cakewalk and Logic being the main competitors).
hm.. thinking more about that, i wonder whether this guy thinks, that pd people do just different, probably subjectively better sounding stuff. or does he really think, that [phasor~] in pd sounds nicer than the [phasor~] in max? this would be actually quite easy to test, if there is any difference at all. create a wav with same frequency and phase of a [phasor~], once in pd, once in max, and then subtract the one from the other and if you do not get a completely silent file, then............... *i shut up* ;-)
nice idea, but i'd try it with an [osc~]. anyone want to volunteer?
-- damian stewart | +351 967 797 263 | damian@frey.co.nz frey | live art with machines | http://www.frey.co.nz
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list