--- On Thu, 3/18/10, Marco Donnarumma devel@thesaddj.com wrote:
From: Marco Donnarumma devel@thesaddj.com Subject: Re: [PD] Pd, Max/Msp, Reaktor, Plogue Bidule... How do these compare? To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: quietdidit@gmail.com, pd-list@iem.at Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010, 6:38 PM
Hi Jonathan, I think it can be, of course it is not for everybody. it was for me too :9
However, as somebody already answered, few things could improve the beg >phase of a learning curve. The plugin introduced in Pd 0.43 which shows a category dropdown menu >which can be used to recall objects in a easier way and _above all_ >without knowing about their existence could be one of those enhancement.
Also I wonder about a stronger background color difference among few >objects (i.e. a different color for [inlet]/[outlet], [send]/[receive], >or tilde objects). And probably more recent embedded tutorials to get started (and I feel >ashamed I still didn't contribute, many thanks to all the people who >already did it).
I'm almost finished revising the docs: 2.control.examples, 3.audio.examples, 4.data.structures, and 5.reference. I'll post them to the list when I'm done (should be shortly).
Anyway learning Pd is _not_ easy and it doesn't have to be. Hence the >learning curve and learning tools could be improved, but you still should >be aware that if you want to be able to master such a flexible computing >capability you need to get your hands (and mind) dirty. I think it's >worth, and I wouldn't like it to be easier.
I disagree-- I would like it to be easier, and it should be easier. More time spent trying to figure out how dollarsym atoms get expanded is less time spent making music. The last paragraph of Pd Manual 2.6.5 doesn't reflect the current state of Pd, btw. Do items like that belong on the bug tracker?
Studying and Teaching I found Pd can operate kind of "natural selection" >that sometimes is needed in some context.
By that logic there should be even less documentation (or more outdated/ erroneous docs). But what are the characteristics that make students fit enough to avoid death and reproduce themselves into the next generation of the Pd learning environment? As far as I can tell, Pd crashes will remain Pd crashes, regardless of whether the output isn't boring, so I don't think I understand what you mean.
On a related note, a [sculch-gate~] object would be cool. (sculch = junk)
-Jonathan
I'm almost finished revising the docs: 2.control.examples, 3.audio.examples, 4.data.structures, and 5.reference. I'll post them to the list when I'm done (should be shortly).
cool!
Anyway learning Pd is _not_ easy and it doesn't have to be. Hence the learning curve and learning tools could be improved, but you still should be aware that if you want to be able to master such a flexible computing capability you need to get your hands (and mind) dirty. I think it's worth, and I wouldn't like it to be easier.
I disagree-- I would like it to be easier, and it should be easier. More time spent trying to figure out how dollarsym atoms get expanded is less time spent making music. The last paragraph of Pd Manual 2.6.5 doesn't reflect the current state of Pd, btw. Do items like that belong on the bug tracker?
Well, I agree It could be a better learning, but Michael stole my thought:
" If I am not interested in solving problems algorithmically through programming, I will not use Pd but some other software that will help me accomplish my goals via some other means that I can understand better."
Studying and Teaching I found Pd can operate kind of "natural selection" that sometimes is needed in some context.
By that logic there should be even less documentation (or more outdated/ erroneous docs). But what are the characteristics that make students fit enough to avoid death and reproduce themselves into the next generation of the Pd learning environment? As far as I can tell, Pd crashes will remain Pd crashes, regardless of whether the output isn't boring, so I don't think I understand what you mean.
mm.. why less documentation? Could be better and updated documentation as you are doing. Be sure that who's studying and teaching to learn Pd (and not to _instantly_ make music) will be very grateful (i am the first!) ehehe, probably my statement was slightly "racist", apologies, I only mean "what makes students fit enough to use Pd, or to die in the boredom of User-friendly soft". The _process_ of learning any kind of programming language play an essential role in the way you will use it in the future. As Michael outlined too, I don't think it would be useful to show students there exist a supercool ready-made drum sequencer, but i prefer to teach first how to load a sample in a table, explaining how they can get a drum sequencer from there. Talking about Pd It's fundamental to learn how things works, imho.
On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 09:58 +0100, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
Talking about Pd It's fundamental to learn how things works, imho.
Pd is the fundament for learning how things work. That was my experience (and still is).
Roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
--- On Fri, 3/19/10, Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de wrote:
From: Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de Subject: Re: [PD] Pd, Max/Msp, Reaktor, Plogue Bidule... How do these compare? To: "Marco Donnarumma" devel@thesaddj.com Cc: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com, pd-list@iem.at, "Matteo Sisti Sette" matteosistisette@gmail.com, mis@artengine.ca Date: Friday, March 19, 2010, 6:07 PM On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 09:58 +0100, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
Talking about Pd It's fundamental to learn how things
works, imho.
Pd is the fundament for learning how things work. That was my experience (and still is).
Roman
What are you getting at? The two aren't mutually exclusive.
-Jonathan
On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 11:02 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Fri, 3/19/10, Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de wrote:
From: Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de Subject: Re: [PD] Pd, Max/Msp, Reaktor, Plogue Bidule... How do these compare? To: "Marco Donnarumma" devel@thesaddj.com Cc: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com, pd-list@iem.at, "Matteo Sisti Sette" matteosistisette@gmail.com, mis@artengine.ca Date: Friday, March 19, 2010, 6:07 PM On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 09:58 +0100, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
Talking about Pd It's fundamental to learn how things
works, imho.
Pd is the fundament for learning how things work. That was my experience (and still is).
Roman
What are you getting at? The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I am actually thinking that the two are complementary.
Of course, it helps a lot to have a certain level of knowledge in dsp/math/whatsover before touching Pd. I just wanted to point out, that Pd very well supports the approach of acquiring theory through practice. Concepts such as, that every sound is composed of its sinusoidal partials (just one example of so many possible), sound very abstract and are hard to explain in words. But at the same time, they are often quite easy to illustrate with Pd (see 07.additive.pd from 3.audio.examples).
Of course, it is fundamental to learn how things works, but how do you learn those things? My answer is: By using Pd. Similar to how a two year old child learns the basic laws of physics by letting things fall down, throw them away, put them on other things etc, Pd lets you explore the nature of sound. I often feel the need of telling potential Pd users, that it's not necessary to have read many books and be a master in math before doing Pd, but if they do read books, it helps a lot to try things out in Pd right away.
Btw, it was great to hear about eleven year olds working with Pd. I wished I would have known a tool like Pd, when I was at that age, especially in math class. Not that I had extraordinary difficulties in understanding the matter, but it would have been so much more interesting with a lot of formulas being translated to Pd. There is a _huge_ didactic difference between a written representation of a formula and Pd-patch representation with sliders and numberboxes.
Roman
--- On Fri, 3/19/10, Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de wrote:
From: Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de Subject: Re: [PD] Pd, Max/Msp, Reaktor, Plogue Bidule... How do these compare? To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "Marco Donnarumma" devel@thesaddj.com, pd-list@iem.at, "Matteo Sisti Sette" matteosistisette@gmail.com, mis@artengine.ca Date: Friday, March 19, 2010, 8:11 PM On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 11:02 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Fri, 3/19/10, Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de
wrote:
From: Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de Subject: Re: [PD] Pd, Max/Msp, Reaktor, Plogue
Bidule... How do these compare?
To: "Marco Donnarumma" devel@thesaddj.com Cc: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com,
pd-list@iem.at, "Matteo Sisti Sette" matteosistisette@gmail.com, mis@artengine.ca
Date: Friday, March 19, 2010, 6:07 PM On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 09:58 +0100, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
Talking about Pd It's fundamental to learn
how things
works, imho.
Pd is the fundament for learning how things work.
That was
my experience (and still is).
Roman
What are you getting at? The two aren't mutually
exclusive.
I am actually thinking that the two are complementary.
Of course, it helps a lot to have a certain level of knowledge in dsp/math/whatsover before touching Pd. I just wanted to point out, that Pd very well supports the approach of acquiring theory through practice. Concepts such as, that every sound is composed of its sinusoidal partials (just one example of so many possible), sound very abstract and are hard to explain in words. But at the same time, they are often quite easy to illustrate with Pd (see 07.additive.pd from 3.audio.examples).
Of course, it is fundamental to learn how things works, but how do you learn those things? My answer is: By using Pd. Similar to how a two year old child learns the basic laws of physics by letting things fall down, throw them away, put them on other things etc, Pd lets you explore the nature of sound. I often feel the need of telling potential Pd users, that it's not necessary to have read many books and be a master in math before doing Pd, but if they do read books, it helps a lot to try things out in Pd right away.
I see. I took Marco's statement to mean that talking about Pd is fundamental to learning how things work in Pd. It sounds like you're saying that you don't have to have a comprehensive knowledge of "how dsp works" before diving into Pd because using Pd is a way of aquiring that knowledge. I agree with both.
-Jonathan
(Sorry, had a couple of days off)
I actually meant what Roman pointed out, but I wrote it in horrible english. However, I do agree with you that both aspects are complementary.
M
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Fri, 3/19/10, Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de wrote:
From: Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de Subject: Re: [PD] Pd, Max/Msp, Reaktor, Plogue Bidule... How do these
compare?
To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "Marco Donnarumma" devel@thesaddj.com, pd-list@iem.at, "Matteo
Sisti Sette" matteosistisette@gmail.com, mis@artengine.ca
Date: Friday, March 19, 2010, 8:11 PM On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 11:02 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Fri, 3/19/10, Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de
wrote:
From: Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de Subject: Re: [PD] Pd, Max/Msp, Reaktor, Plogue
Bidule... How do these compare?
To: "Marco Donnarumma" devel@thesaddj.com Cc: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com,
pd-list@iem.at, "Matteo Sisti Sette" matteosistisette@gmail.com, mis@artengine.ca
Date: Friday, March 19, 2010, 6:07 PM On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 09:58 +0100, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
Talking about Pd It's fundamental to learn
how things
works, imho.
Pd is the fundament for learning how things work.
That was
my experience (and still is).
Roman
What are you getting at? The two aren't mutually
exclusive.
I am actually thinking that the two are complementary.
Of course, it helps a lot to have a certain level of knowledge in dsp/math/whatsover before touching Pd. I just wanted to point out, that Pd very well supports the approach of acquiring theory through practice. Concepts such as, that every sound is composed of its sinusoidal partials (just one example of so many possible), sound very abstract and are hard to explain in words. But at the same time, they are often quite easy to illustrate with Pd (see 07.additive.pd from 3.audio.examples).
Of course, it is fundamental to learn how things works, but how do you learn those things? My answer is: By using Pd. Similar to how a two year old child learns the basic laws of physics by letting things fall down, throw them away, put them on other things etc, Pd lets you explore the nature of sound. I often feel the need of telling potential Pd users, that it's not necessary to have read many books and be a master in math before doing Pd, but if they do read books, it helps a lot to try things out in Pd right away.
I see. I took Marco's statement to mean that talking about Pd is fundamental to learning how things work in Pd. It sounds like you're saying that you don't have to have a comprehensive knowledge of "how dsp works" before diving into Pd because using Pd is a way of aquiring that knowledge. I agree with both.
-Jonathan
-
Jonathan Wilkes -
Marco Donnarumma -
Roman Haefeli