Hello List,
Has anyone ever used ChucK? How does it compare with Pd? I don't need a three-week long debate about Pd's smoothness here, just a quite simple answer, really :) I m assuming it hasn't been developped for long enough to beat Pd. I was just curious, as a friend of mine told me the Harvard laptop music ensemble are using Chuck exclusively.
Pierre
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Pierre Massat pimassat@gmail.com wrote:
the Harvard laptop music ensemble are using Chuck exclusively.
L2Ork - Linux Laptop Orchestra at Virginia tech uses Pd, AFAIK...
Also, NEXUS at Concordia University uses Pd http://matralab.hexagram.ca/nexus-world-premiere-at-congress-2010-581.htm (Not exactly a laptop orchestra but a slightly different beast).
I have used ChucK very little but in my experience it was fun to try out quickly musical ideas. Some synthesis + musical ideas as well. But I found it a little computationally inefficient for more complex situations and having quick access to GUI while prototyping (without having to write code or OSC tags) is convenient.
Besides that I would suggest you spend some time with it and see if it provides you with enough satisfaction, that is really the only way to know.
Best,
./MiS
FWIW I looked at chuck to run on my performance wearable (500 MHz P3) and all I got was dropouts. Pd runs great in realtime on the same machine ...
On May 31, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Pierre Massat wrote:
Hello List,
Has anyone ever used ChucK? How does it compare with Pd? I don't need a three-week long debate about Pd's smoothness here, just a quite simple answer, really :) I m assuming it hasn't been developped for long enough to beat Pd. I was just curious, as a friend of mine told me the Harvard laptop music ensemble are using Chuck exclusively.
Pierre
Dan Wilcox danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
FWIW I looked at chuck to run on my performance wearable (500 MHz P3) and all I got was dropouts. Pd runs great in realtime on the same machine ...
That's because ChucK has its DSP loop set at per sample whereas Pd calculates everything in 64-byte chunks. While latter gives you a relief from the CPU load, it also lowers the actual control over DSP processes, so you can't exactly pinpoint a sample and translate its trigger into a non-signal domain beyond being sure that the event was triggered when the sample in question was located within the last 64-byte buffer.
HTH
ico
PD's blocking behaviour is also configurable with the [block~] object, so you can set the blocksize to a single sample if you like.
I think I remember reading that ChucK can operate with variable-sized blocks as well, but I could be wrong.
-spencer
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Ivica Ico Bukvic ico@vt.edu wrote:
FWIW I looked at chuck to run on my performance wearable (500 MHz P3) and all I got was dropouts. Pd runs great in realtime on the same machine ...
That's because ChucK has its DSP loop set at per sample whereas Pd calculates everything in 64-byte chunks. While latter gives you a relief from the CPU load, it also lowers the actual control over DSP processes, so you can't exactly pinpoint a sample and translate its trigger into a non-signal domain beyond being sure that the event was triggered when the sample in question was located within the last 64-byte buffer.
HTH
ico
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
You might have a look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rpk461T6l4 where Ge Wang gives a detailed ChucK demo.
(The shreds going to shred heaven at 46:00 are cute.)
-Jonathan
From: Spencer Russell spencer.f.russell@gmail.com To: Ivica Ico Bukvic ico@vt.edu Cc: pd-list@iem.at Sent: Mon, May 31, 2010 8:08:55 PM Subject: Re: [PD] ChucK vs. Pd
PD's blocking behaviour is also configurable with the [block~] object, so you can set the blocksize to a single sample if you like.
I think I remember reading that ChucK can operate with variable-sized blocks as well, but I could be wrong.
-spencer
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Ivica Ico Bukvic ico@vt.edu wrote:
FWIW I looked at chuck to run on my performance wearable (500 MHz P3) and all I got was dropouts. Pd runs great in realtime on the same machine ...
That's because ChucK has its DSP loop set at per sample whereas Pd calculates everything in 64-byte chunks. While latter gives you a relief from the CPU load, it also lowers the actual control over DSP processes, so you can't exactly pinpoint a sample and translate its trigger into a non-signal domain beyond being sure that the event was triggered when the sample in question was located within the last 64-byte buffer.
HTH
ico
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
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 08:08:55PM -0400, Spencer Russell wrote:
PD's blocking behaviour is also configurable with the [block~] object, so you can set the blocksize to a single sample if you like.
I think I remember reading that ChucK can operate with variable-sized blocks as well, but I could be wrong.
I think, variable timing ("strongly timed") is the interesting part of ChucK. I wrote a bit about this in my LAC2010 paper "Applications of Blocked Signal Processing (BSP) in Pd": http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2010/papers/24.pdf http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2010/download/lac2010_bsp_in_pd.tgz http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2010/recordings/day3_1045_Applications_of_Blocked_...
LuaAV also allows flexible timings.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht Do You RjDj.me? _ ______footils.org__
Thanks for your replies!
Pierre
2010/6/1 Frank Barknecht fbar@footils.org
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 08:08:55PM -0400, Spencer Russell wrote:
PD's blocking behaviour is also configurable with the [block~] object, so you can set the blocksize to a single sample if you like.
I think I remember reading that ChucK can operate with variable-sized blocks as well, but I could be wrong.
I think, variable timing ("strongly timed") is the interesting part of ChucK. I wrote a bit about this in my LAC2010 paper "Applications of Blocked Signal Processing (BSP) in Pd": http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2010/papers/24.pdf http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2010/download/lac2010_bsp_in_pd.tgz
http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2010/recordings/day3_1045_Applications_of_Blocked_...
LuaAV also allows flexible timings.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht Do You RjDj.me? _ ______footils.org__
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
yo
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Pierre Massat pimassat@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone ever used ChucK?
guilty.
How does it compare with Pd?
well, it doesn't have pd's patching visual interface. it doesn't have the endless extentions [existing and extinct] that pd does. and it doesn't have a commercial cousin [max] like pd.
it's a different mindset, a different interface. my time with it was very fruitful. i'd recommend it.
I m assuming it hasn't been developped for long enough to beat Pd.
no need to beat up each other! isn't it better to have more than one kind of audio programming interface?
-
Dan Wilcox -
Frank Barknecht -
Ivica Ico Bukvic -
john saylor -
Jonathan Wilkes -
Michal Seta -
Pierre Massat -
Spencer Russell