Hi Epic,
I am not a specialist, but I know from my brother and other experienced composers that one big reason for switching between these is simply the different ideas and possibilities they sparkle on the composer's mind. Once they have maxed-out on using and exploring Pd, they switch to the text-based alternatives you mention to explore different possibilities. But that is an all-encompassing approach from very advanced musicians. One more or less concrete thing I can tell you is that it seems Chuck as a language fits many people's mindset better than SuperCollider, perhaps because of the syntax style and how it allows for better live performance.
Anyways, these are just my 2c to get the ball rolling.
Ricardo Fabbri
Linux registered user #175401 labmacambira.sf.net
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Epic Jefferson jeffreyconcepcion@gmail.com wrote:
After the recent post about CsoundforLive, it resparked my interest in trying out one of the text based audio synthesis programs. Since it seems like a very steep learning curve to start learning any of these(Csounds, SuperCollider or Chuck) I just wanted to see if anyone here has had any experience with any of these and what your verdict was. I'd like to start a sort of opinion poll:
How do they compare against each other? How do they match up to Pd for your needs? What sort of things can be achieved in these programs that can't be achieved in Pd, if any?
-- www.epicjefferson.com www.avmachinists.org Puerto Rico based Art Collective/ Non-Profit Org
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list