On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Damian Stewart wrote:
(i'm reminded of a particular electroacoustic composition tutorial class i attended when studying a couple of years ago, where we were being taught to use SoundHack and the tutor was saying all sorts of things to us like 'you should use the Hanning window here because it sounds best' and 'don't use settings here below <x> because it won't sound good'. i managed to convince him to demonstrate what 'sounding bad' was like, and then we spent the rest of the tutorial playing with settings and making 'bad sounding' audio. it was great.)
Yes. As I said, I'm sure you can get pretty cool sounds out of this effect, but if all you're looking for is a way to make a cleaner kind of stretching/shrinking, it's the wrong place to look for it, which is why I was being negative about it. If the point is to make funny-sounding stuff, you probably have something more interesting than a shovelful of allpass filtres here.
On a related note, gridflow/examples/postdigital.pd is an example of messing with a setting called "quality", _lowering_ it until it looks so low-fidelity that it becomes _interesting_. Then it shows the frame difference with the original image, which is even more fun. I think of postdigitalism as about not taking quality settings literally, which is why I came up with this patch under that name, or came up with that name for that patch.
Note that my use of the term is tongue-in-cheek and I haven't read Kim Cascone nor Roy Ascott, and chances are that I'm not going to do it soon (I have a large pile of unread books in the queue and it doesn't get any smaller). But I enjoy talking about those æsthetical issues a lot, just that I tend to use my existing background instead, which may give wholly different results... e.g.: what if Claude Shannon had written a book named «Différence et Répétition»? that's the kind of question I sometimes ask myself.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec