hey,
i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name) and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a fuller sound with the oscillators, he said.
i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - not sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a deeper architectural level than that.
anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? reasons why this might be the case?
what I experience sometimes when I do very basic stuff like using phasors, is that I hear weird comb filtering of my environment after I put down my headphones. similar as if you look into bright light and then close the eyes, and you still see a review-image. regarding the difference between pd and max: are you talking about the music that people produce or are you talking about the digital signal process? m.
Damian Stewart wrote:
hey,
i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name) and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a fuller sound with the oscillators, he said.
i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - not sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a deeper architectural level than that.
anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? reasons why this might be the case?
There is test I use to evaluate one important aspect of all synthesis systems. It tests oscillator accuracy.
The patch is by Jean Claude Risset and is an additive concept he called frequency domain grating, and is analogous to diffraction grating used in spectroscopy.
Here is Hartmanns paper about it http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/fdg.pdf
You take as many sines as the system will handle, typically a thousand or so, and sum them. All must start on exactly the same phase. Now, if we had a series of _all_ frequencies it would give us an impulse, but instead set the difference between each oscillator to be 1 cycle + delta, where delta is very small, maybe 1Hz or less.
What you will hear in Csound on a 64 bit system is a ** beautiful ** effect as a "rainbow" of all frequencies apparently plays in sequence.
Now, if the oscillators are very good the spacing will be equal and the effect will sound crystal clear with individual frequencies popping in and out in a regular stream.
If the oscillators are innacurate (because of distortion, bit depth, asymmetry etc) then you will hear a muddled effect. Any deviation from a perfect sine must introduce other hamonics and these come out in the sequence, so it's an empirical/practical way of testing the quality of a digital system without any special test equipment or measuring other than your ears.
Hardly very scientific, but roughly from the few chances I've had to try it on different systems...
Csound - the King, all bow before Csound Nyquist/CLM - a close second on some machines Puredata - Not bad, but not good, you can tell something is broken Max - pretty damn awful Reaktor - forget it
So I believe there is a difference between Max and Pd and Max is the loser. But of course all software is in development. And it must be said;
- this only test oscillator accuracy but may also test fp accuracy (I haven't
thought it through in detail)
- It depends how you do it. For example, using table oscillators that precompute
is different than taking the cosine (maybe Taylor or poly approximated) of a phasor.
If I had all systems running and time I'd try it again, but I don't. If we could define the exact parameters for a patch to eliminate variables I think Rissets diffraction is a very good test that reveals the quality of digital synthesis software.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:02:00 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
what I experience sometimes when I do very basic stuff like using phasors, is that I hear weird comb filtering of my environment after I put down my headphones. similar as if you look into bright light and then close the eyes, and you still see a review-image. regarding the difference between pd and max: are you talking about the music that people produce or are you talking about the digital signal process? m.
Damian Stewart wrote:
hey,
i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name) and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a fuller sound with the oscillators, he said.
i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - not sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a deeper architectural level than that.
anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? reasons why this might be the case?
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote:
You take as many sines as the system will handle, typically a thousand or so, and sum them. All must start on exactly the same phase. Now, if we had a series of _all_ frequencies it would give us an impulse, but instead set the difference between each oscillator to be 1 cycle + delta, where delta is very small, maybe 1Hz or less.
This is an interesting concept, thanks for passing it along.
Hardly very scientific, but roughly from the few chances I've had to try it on different systems...
Csound - the King, all bow before Csound
yeah boyee
-Chuckk
On Mar 8, 2008, at 11:00 PM, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Andy Farnell
padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote:You take as many sines as the system will handle, typically a thousand or so, and sum them. All must start on exactly the same phase. Now, if we had a series of _all_ frequencies it would give us an impulse, but instead set the difference between each oscillator to be 1 cycle + delta, where delta is very small, maybe 1Hz or less.
This is an interesting concept, thanks for passing it along.
Hardly very scientific, but roughly from the few chances I've had to try it on different systems...
Csound - the King, all bow before Csound
yeah boyee
To muddy the waters a bit, the most 'correct' sound isn't always the
best sound. Consider so many people's love of tube amps. They have
higher distorsion than transistor amps, yet so many people think they
sound better.
.hc
All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies,
one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better
language; and every chapter must be so translated.... -John Donne
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
To muddy the waters a bit, the most 'correct' sound isn't always the
best sound. Consider so many people's love of tube amps. They have
higher distorsion than transistor amps, yet so many people think they
sound better.
i remember reading about people recreating the Roland 303 and one of the things that made its distinctive sound was that the original power supply was a bit crappy and couldn't really handle it - in fact if you wound up one the filters' resonance too high it would be drawing more power than was available, which would lead to all sorts of fun distortion across the whole circuit.
one of my aims for the next little while is to build a pd external that tries to mathematically model the distortion that's going on when an analog (transistor or tube-based) circuit is overpowered, perhaps on a molecular level, to get a nicer sound when i push the delay feedback up too high (which i like to do).
lalala...
Tube amps sounds better because the electron flow into the tube always make a kind of interpolation when the signal comes to distortion.
Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
To muddy the waters a bit, the most 'correct' sound isn't always the
best sound. Consider so many people's love of tube amps. They have
higher distorsion than transistor amps, yet so many people think they
sound better..hc
All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies,
one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better
language; and every chapter must be so translated.... -John Donne
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
I looked for some sounds that demonstrate the difference of oscillator accuracy. All I could find are these two snips from tracks, but it's a fair comparison because;
- "Functions of Time" (1996) An all Csound composition.
http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/FunctionsOfTime-track3.mp3
- "Look Ma, No hands!" (2005) An all Pd composition.
http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/Nohands-short.mp3
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.
It would be good to do a Max vs Pd comparison of the same someday.
a.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:02:00 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
what I experience sometimes when I do very basic stuff like using phasors, is that I hear weird comb filtering of my environment after I put down my headphones. similar as if you look into bright light and then close the eyes, and you still see a review-image. regarding the difference between pd and max: are you talking about the music that people produce or are you talking about the digital signal process? m.
Damian Stewart wrote:
hey,
i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name) and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a fuller sound with the oscillators, he said.
i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - not sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a deeper architectural level than that.
anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? reasons why this might be the case?
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Yeah but mp3s always sound muddy to me...
Martin
Andy Farnell wrote:
I looked for some sounds that demonstrate the difference of oscillator accuracy. All I could find are these two snips from tracks, but it's a fair comparison because;
- "Functions of Time" (1996) An all Csound composition.
http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/FunctionsOfTime-track3.mp3
- "Look Ma, No hands!" (2005) An all Pd composition.
http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/Nohands-short.mp3
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.
It would be good to do a Max vs Pd comparison of the same someday.
a.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:02:00 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
what I experience sometimes when I do very basic stuff like using phasors, is that I hear weird comb filtering of my environment after I put down my headphones. similar as if you look into bright light and then close the eyes, and you still see a review-image. regarding the difference between pd and max: are you talking about the music that people produce or are you talking about the digital signal process? m.
Damian Stewart wrote:
hey,
i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name) and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a fuller sound with the oscillators, he said.
i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - not sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a deeper architectural level than that.
anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? reasons why this might be the case?
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Sat, 2008-03-08 at 14:15 -0500, Martin Peach wrote:
Yeah but mp3s always sound muddy to me...
would it be possible to post some flac versions of those pieces?
roman
Andy Farnell wrote:
I looked for some sounds that demonstrate the difference of oscillator accuracy. All I could find are these two snips from tracks, but it's a fair comparison because;
- "Functions of Time" (1996) An all Csound composition.
http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/FunctionsOfTime-track3.mp3
- "Look Ma, No hands!" (2005) An all Pd composition.
http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/Nohands-short.mp3
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.
It would be good to do a Max vs Pd comparison of the same someday.
a.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:02:00 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
what I experience sometimes when I do very basic stuff like using phasors, is that I hear weird comb filtering of my environment after I put down my headphones. similar as if you look into bright light and then close the eyes, and you still see a review-image. regarding the difference between pd and max: are you talking about the music that people produce or are you talking about the digital signal process? m.
Damian Stewart wrote:
hey,
i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name) and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a fuller sound with the oscillators, he said.
i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - not sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a deeper architectural level than that.
anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? reasons why this might be the case?
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
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.
Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles.
Ciao
Frank
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.
Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles.
so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? marius.
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.
Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles.
so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? marius.
Because it's optimised for real-time performance.
Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was designed for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU speeds.
Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a raytracing scene in 3DMax.
In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we could say "what did you expect?!"
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to
Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one
sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles.
so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? marius.
Because it's optimised for real-time performance.
Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was
designed for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU
speeds.Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a
raytracing scene in 3DMax.In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we
could say "what did you expect?!"
It would be very nice to have a "cleansound" library of dsp objects,
perhaps ported from Csound.
.hc
Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic.
It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and
expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war
on terrorism. - retired U.S. Army general, William Odom
On Mar 8, 2008, at 5:30 PM, Martin Peach wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It would be very nice to have a "cleansound" library of dsp
objects, perhaps ported from Csound.You can already use [csoundapi~], which comes with most csound
varieties, to access anything in csound from pd.
Right, but doesn't that mean you write your instruments in Csound,
then control them in Pd? I was thinking Pd objects using the csound
code.
.hc
¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@eds.org wrote:
On Mar 8, 2008, at 5:30 PM, Martin Peach wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It would be very nice to have a "cleansound" library of dsp objects, perhaps ported from Csound.
You can already use [csoundapi~], which comes with most csound varieties, to access anything in csound from pd.
Right, but doesn't that mean you write your instruments in Csound, then control them in Pd? I was thinking Pd objects using the csound code.
Seems obvious, doesn't it? AFAIK it would be perfectly legal to take the code directly. I find [csoundapi~] very useful. I tend to think, if you want Csound, use Csound, but as a Linux enthusiast I think it's generally better for an option to exist than to not exist. How the two programs are structured is a different question. I don't know for sure, but it might take some substantial changes. Csound uses vectors and scalars for audio and control signals, somewhat different than block size. Then again it might translate easily, I dunno. Csound has a huge library, some of the more advanced stuff might be useful too, not just oscillators.
-Chuckk
Come on guys, I thought it was the artist not the tool, that was responsible for making amazing sounds. Maybe since PD is free so more artists get a chance to use it?
When will they come up with the PD to CSound python conversion script?
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Chuckk Hubbard badmuthahubbard@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@eds.org wrote:
On Mar 8, 2008, at 5:30 PM, Martin Peach wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It would be very nice to have a "cleansound" library of dsp objects, perhaps ported from Csound.
You can already use [csoundapi~], which comes with most csound varieties, to access anything in csound from pd.
Right, but doesn't that mean you write your instruments in Csound, then control them in Pd? I was thinking Pd objects using the csound code.
Seems obvious, doesn't it? AFAIK it would be perfectly legal to take the code directly. I find [csoundapi~] very useful. I tend to think, if you want Csound, use Csound, but as a Linux enthusiast I think it's generally better for an option to exist than to not exist. How the two programs are structured is a different question. I don't know for sure, but it might take some substantial changes. Csound uses vectors and scalars for audio and control signals, somewhat different than block size. Then again it might translate easily, I dunno. Csound has a huge library, some of the more advanced stuff might be useful too, not just oscillators.
-Chuckk
-- http://www.badmuthahubbard.com
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Sat, 2008-03-08 at 21:25 +0000, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.
Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles.
so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? marius.
Because it's optimised for real-time performance.
Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was designed for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU speeds.
sounds reasonable. however, i would be interested to have some illustration of that. what is it, that makes the difference? i'd be most interested to see examples on a rather low level (oscillators, ramp generators etc). the code for both is open, so it should be feasible to find some differences, if there are any.
basically, this means also, that it is not possible to generate any intended signal with pd. is that true?
roman
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
Hi Roman, all,
Here's discussion that caught my eye some while back
http://www.devmaster.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5784
There's been several good posts on music-dsp and dsp-related.com over the years dealing with both sides, high accuracy and high effciciency. In the end, of course, it's a trade off.
Andy
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:39:54 +0100 Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de wrote:
On Sat, 2008-03-08 at 21:25 +0000, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.
Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles.
so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? marius.
Because it's optimised for real-time performance.
Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was designed for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU speeds.
sounds reasonable. however, i would be interested to have some illustration of that. what is it, that makes the difference? i'd be most interested to see examples on a rather low level (oscillators, ramp generators etc). the code for both is open, so it should be feasible to find some differences, if there are any.
basically, this means also, that it is not possible to generate any intended signal with pd. is that true?
roman
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
Well, why couldn't Pd be as "clean", processors are fast enough these
days, and one could always crank up the sample rates of their DSP
blocks. Isn't the internal resolution at least 32bit anyway (is it
64bit under any circumstances?)
cheers, ~brandon
On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to
Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one
sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles.
so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? marius.
Because it's optimised for real-time performance.
Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was
designed for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU
speeds.Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a
raytracing scene in 3DMax.In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we
could say "what did you expect?!"
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Use the source
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
It could be, it's just a matter of someone writing the code :)
That's why I proposed the 'cleansound' library.
.hc
On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:01 PM, bsoisoi wrote:
Well, why couldn't Pd be as "clean", processors are fast enough these days, and one could always crank up the sample rates of their DSP blocks. Isn't the internal resolution at least 32bit anyway (is it 64bit under any circumstances?)
cheers, ~brandon
On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.
Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles.
so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? marius.
Because it's optimised for real-time performance.
Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was designed for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU speeds.
Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a raytracing scene in 3DMax.
In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we could say "what did you expect?!"
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
-- Use the source
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
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from
scarcity." -John Gilmore
Why can't we simply have the option to turn up (or turn down!) the
resolution of the objects we already have? This is considerably less
complex.
~Brandon
On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It could be, it's just a matter of someone writing the code :)
That's why I proposed the 'cleansound' library..hc
On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:01 PM, bsoisoi wrote:
Well, why couldn't Pd be as "clean", processors are fast enough these days, and one could always crank up the sample rates of their DSP blocks. Isn't the internal resolution at least 32bit anyway (is it 64bit under any circumstances?)
cheers, ~brandon
On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to Pd, both are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one sparkles while the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.
Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles.
so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? marius.
Because it's optimised for real-time performance.
Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was designed for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU speeds.
Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a raytracing scene in 3DMax.
In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we could say "what did you expect?!"
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Use the source
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
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from
scarcity." -John Gilmore
You can already do that by setting the sample rate as high or low as your hardware will support and using the [block~] object to set the control rate to the resolution you want. It would be interesting to try to build pd using doubles instead of floats, but it would necessitate changing the size of atoms... Max/MSP uses doubles everywhere for its 'floats'.
Martin
Brandon Zeeb wrote:
Why can't we simply have the option to turn up (or turn down!) the
resolution of the objects we already have? This is considerably less
complex. ~BrandonOn Mar 9, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It could be, it's just a matter of someone writing the code :)
That's why I proposed the 'cleansound' library..hc
On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:01 PM, bsoisoi wrote:
Well, why couldn't Pd be as "clean", processors are fast enough these days, and one could always crank up the sample rates of their DSP blocks. Isn't the internal resolution at least 32bit anyway (is it 64bit under any circumstances?)
cheers, ~brandon
On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
> Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's > comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to > Pd, both > are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one > sparkles while > the Pd one sounds a bit muddy. Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles.
so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? marius.
Because it's optimised for real-time performance.
Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was designed for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU speeds.
Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a raytracing scene in 3DMax.
In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we could say "what did you expect?!"
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Use the source
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
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from
scarcity." -John Gilmore
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Martin Peach wrote:
It would be interesting to try to build pd using doubles instead of floats, but it would necessitate changing the size of atoms...
see my other post: this is basically done. on 64bit OS the size of atoms would stay the same (it's at least 64bit because of the pointers)
fgadsmr, IOhannes
Most Pd objects (externals) use t_sample to define what gets passed to input and output. At compilation time, the externals code includes m_pd.h, which defines t_sample as a float. Which makes sense on 32-bit processors--Pd for 64-bit processors could potentially redefine t_sample as a double, with no loss in performance (with nearly twice as much memory usage).
I am aware that there are some other problems involved with making Pd accessible as either 32-bit or 64-bit resolution, but I'm not so deep into the source code to tell you what they all are.
Chuck
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Brandon Zeeb bsoisoi@mac.com wrote:
Why can't we simply have the option to turn up (or turn down!) the resolution of the objects we already have? This is considerably less complex. ~Brandon
On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It could be, it's just a matter of someone writing the code :) That's why I proposed the 'cleansound' library.
.hc
On Mar 9, 2008, at 2:01 PM, bsoisoi wrote:
Well, why couldn't Pd be as "clean", processors are fast enough these days, and one could always crank up the sample rates of their DSP blocks. Isn't the internal resolution at least 32bit anyway (is it 64bit under any circumstances?)
cheers, ~brandon
On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:08:45 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
> Both use the same patch (the undulating diffraction effect). It's > comparable because I translated the Csound version directly to > Pd, both > are 64 oscillator banks and it's clear that the Csound one > sparkles while > the Pd one sounds a bit muddy.
Csound also is known as "CleanSound" in some circles.
so why is then "pure" data not equally clean? marius.
Because it's optimised for real-time performance.
Max/Pd strike a careful balance between for real-time capability. The amazing sound quality of Csound comes about because it was designed for offline rendering, and it got realtime by dint of increased CPU speeds.
Like the difference between a 3D games engine and rendering a raytracing scene in 3DMax.
In a way, it's not really a fair comparison at all, or at least we could say "what did you expect?!"
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Use the source
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
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity." -John Gilmore
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Charles Henry wrote:
Most Pd objects (externals) use t_sample to define what gets passed to input and output. At compilation time, the externals code includes m_pd.h, which defines t_sample as a float. Which makes sense on 32-bit processors--Pd for 64-bit processors could potentially redefine t_sample as a double, with no loss in performance (with nearly twice as much memory usage).
that's the theory. in practice, even Pd-vanilla was using a wild mix of t_sample, t_float & float as sample-type until 0.41 (when i submitted a number of patches to clean that up)
i have a basically running version of Pd with 64bit double precision, basically only some oscillators have to be ported (osc~, phasor~,... use lowest level bitmanipulation in their core-routines) playing soundfiles works fine :-)
fgmadsr IOhannes
On Sunday 09 March 2008 19:59, Charles Henry wrote:
Pd for 64-bit processors could potentially redefine t_sample as a double, with no loss in performance (with nearly twice as much memory usage).
Mmmmmno...
It just so happens that x87s always compute a double, so it makes little difference there. What you're forgetting is that if you're using SIMD (for example SSE2) using doubles means you can only fit two samples into a vector register instead of four. Half the throughput. On top of that, if you check instruction tables, packed double instructions have a slightly higher latency than packed singles. For the core2 at least.
Not everything (even 64bit) uses an x87.
robert.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It could be, it's just a matter of someone writing the code :)
well, it's almost done. within the next month or 2, i will hopefully have all patches ready, to make Pd fully "double floating point" enabled (that is: you have to chose at compile time; all externals have to be recompiled for this; and no, i have no plans to get a dual-precision (both 32bit and 64bit) support into Pd)
what is more, just raising the precision won't necessarily boost the cleanness of the sound (btw, this is not the objective of my double Pd project); Pd could have better oscillators even with 32bit, by using better interpolation/extrapolation algorithms.
mfga.dsr IOhannes
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 21:05 +0100, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
Pd could have better oscillators even with 32bit, by using better interpolation/extrapolation algorithms.
yo.. would be interesting to hear (for non-dsp experts as me), _what_ could be improved, respectively _what_ is _not_ optimal in pd. could you (or someone else) elaborate that a bit? are you saying, that [osc~] is not generating a clean sine wave? what would you expect from a [phasor~] differently from what it currently does? what kind of algorithms are you talking about? what are they supposed to improve?
roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
[osc~] seems to use a 512-float table with linear interpolation, so it could be made better by increasing the size and/or resolution of the table and/or using a better interpolation algorithm.
Martin
Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 21:05 +0100, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
Pd could have better oscillators even with 32bit, by using better interpolation/extrapolation algorithms.
yo.. would be interesting to hear (for non-dsp experts as me), _what_ could be improved, respectively _what_ is _not_ optimal in pd. could you (or someone else) elaborate that a bit? are you saying, that [osc~] is not generating a clean sine wave? what would you expect from a [phasor~] differently from what it currently does? what kind of algorithms are you talking about? what are they supposed to improve?
roman
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 01:28 +0000, Damian Stewart wrote:
hey,
i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is his name) and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than Max - a fuller sound with the oscillators, he said.
i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to my ears my Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've heard - not sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's at a deeper architectural level than that.
anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this? reasons why this might be the case?
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).
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* ;-)
roman
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
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?
On Mar 7, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 01:28 +0000, Damian Stewart wrote:
hey,
i was talking to a Portuguese musician tonight (Miguel Cardoso is
his name) and he was saying that he thought that Pd sounded much better than
Max - a fuller sound with the oscillators, he said.i hadn't really thought about this before, but i do know that to
my ears my Pd patches sound a lot richer than most Max/MSP stuff that I've
heard - not sure whether that's my source material or patches or whether it's
at a deeper architectural level than that.anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to confirm this?
reasons why this might be the case?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).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* ;-)
I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in
double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences between
them, but I am guessing that those differences are inside the brain,
rather than outside :).
Also, consider that MSP started from Pd code.
.hc
Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. - David Zicarelli
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in
double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences between
them, but I am guessing that those differences are inside the brain,
rather than outside :).
yes, that seems obvious to me too, but this discussion is about the small chance, that there might be a difference in some small details that effectively make a difference..
Also, consider that MSP started from Pd code.
I thought pd came out later (1997) and was completely rewritten with fundamental differences (esp. when it comes to fft and stuff like that).
marius.
On Mar 7, 2008, at 7:33 PM, marius schebella wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in
double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences
between them, but I am guessing that those differences are inside
the brain, rather than outside :).yes, that seems obvious to me too, but this discussion is about the
small chance, that there might be a difference in some small
details that effectively make a difference..Also, consider that MSP started from Pd code.
I thought pd came out later (1997) and was completely rewritten
with fundamental differences (esp. when it comes to fft and stuff
like that).
Max didn't have MSP until Pd came along, it was all about
manipulating MIDI. Check out the copyright splash screen, it says
"portions based on Pd 1997-2005".
.hc
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps
it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into
the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess
himself of it. - Thomas Jefferson
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Mar 7, 2008, at 7:33 PM, marius schebella wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in
double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences between them, but I am guessing that those differences are inside the brain, rather than outside :).yes, that seems obvious to me too, but this discussion is about the small chance, that there might be a difference in some small details that effectively make a difference..
Also, consider that MSP started from Pd code.
I thought pd came out later (1997) and was completely rewritten with fundamental differences (esp. when it comes to fft and stuff like that).
Max didn't have MSP until Pd came along, it was all about manipulating MIDI. Check out the copyright splash screen, it says "portions based on Pd 1997-2005".
no, it says Pd and MSP are based on ideas in Max/FTS, an advanced DSP platform (C) IRCAM.
I learned in school (but that was loooong ago in 1997) that miller wrote max and max/fts at IRCAM in the mid 80s, max already had signal processing in 1990. then he jumped off, david zicarelli sticked with the existing code and developed msp and miller rewrote pd from scratch in 1996/97.
I think max/msp took also code from pd, but that was later. marius.
On Mar 7, 2008, at 9:14 PM, marius schebella wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Mar 7, 2008, at 7:33 PM, marius schebella wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in
double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences
between them, but I am guessing that those differences are
inside the brain, rather than outside :).yes, that seems obvious to me too, but this discussion is about
the small chance, that there might be a difference in some small
details that effectively make a difference..Also, consider that MSP started from Pd code.
I thought pd came out later (1997) and was completely rewritten
with fundamental differences (esp. when it comes to fft and stuff
like that).Max didn't have MSP until Pd came along, it was all about
manipulating MIDI. Check out the copyright splash screen, it says
"portions based on Pd 1997-2005".no, it says Pd and MSP are based on ideas in Max/FTS, an advanced
DSP platform (C) IRCAM.
Look at the line above that one. Max/FTS did have synthesis, but it
was on a separate DSP CPU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max/MSP
"Max has a number of extensions and incarnations; most notably, a set
of audio extensions to the software appeared in 1997, ported from
Pure Data. Called MSP (short for either Max Signal Processing or the
initials of Miller S. Puckette, the author of both Max and Pd), this
"add-on" package for Max allowed for the manipulation of digital
audio signals in real-time"
.hc
I learned in school (but that was loooong ago in 1997) that miller
wrote max and max/fts at IRCAM in the mid 80s, max already had
signal processing in 1990. then he jumped off, david zicarelli
sticked with the existing code and developed msp and miller rewrote
pd from scratch in 1996/97.I think max/msp took also code from pd, but that was later. marius.
Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. - David Zicarelli
ok, so you are right. my reading capabilities get worse from day to day... one more question. I read Pd (c) 1997-2005 The Regents of the University of California? which means the regents of the UC own the rights on Pd??? marius.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Mar 7, 2008, at 9:14 PM, marius schebella wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Mar 7, 2008, at 7:33 PM, marius schebella wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I think it is unlikely that there is a noticeable difference in
double-blind testing. I am sure that people hear differences between them, but I am guessing that those differences are inside the brain, rather than outside :).yes, that seems obvious to me too, but this discussion is about the small chance, that there might be a difference in some small details that effectively make a difference..
Also, consider that MSP started from Pd code.
I thought pd came out later (1997) and was completely rewritten with fundamental differences (esp. when it comes to fft and stuff like that).
Max didn't have MSP until Pd came along, it was all about manipulating MIDI. Check out the copyright splash screen, it says "portions based on Pd 1997-2005".
no, it says Pd and MSP are based on ideas in Max/FTS, an advanced DSP platform (C) IRCAM.
Look at the line above that one. Max/FTS did have synthesis, but it was on a separate DSP CPU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max/MSP
"Max has a number of extensions and incarnations; most notably, a set of audio extensions to the software appeared in 1997, ported from Pure Data. Called MSP (short for either Max Signal Processing or the initials of Miller S. Puckette, the author of both Max and Pd), this "add-on" package for Max allowed for the manipulation of digital audio signals in real-time"
.hc
I learned in school (but that was loooong ago in 1997) that miller wrote max and max/fts at IRCAM in the mid 80s, max already had signal processing in 1990. then he jumped off, david zicarelli sticked with the existing code and developed msp and miller rewrote pd from scratch in 1996/97.
I think max/msp took also code from pd, but that was later. marius.
Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. -David Zicarelli
i have speaker cables made of pure gold. i know what i'm talking about.
cheers, sven.
nobody will deny that. m.
sven wrote:
i have speaker cables made of pure gold. i know what i'm talking about.
cheers, sven.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
of course not. at least not here.
At 03:45 08.03.2008, marius schebella wrote:
nobody will deny that. m.
sven wrote:
i have speaker cables made of pure gold. i know what i'm talking about.
cheers, sven.
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
Please explain. Is it the linux modules vs. Windows drivers? What makes the difference?
It's good to know why I'm in favor of things
Chuck
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 7:49 PM, sven ml.sven@subscience.de wrote:
i have speaker cables made of pure gold. i know what i'm talking about.
cheers, sven.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
damn my new computer with RoHS certified brazing solder sounds so
much better.
prosit, max
Am 08.03.2008 um 09:49 schrieb sven:
i have speaker cables made of pure gold. i know what i'm talking about.
cheers, sven.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
I only use room temperature superconducting nanotube speaker cables now, gold is strictly bush league (for listening to mp3s)
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 12:22:12 +0800 Max Neupert abonnements@revolwear.com wrote:
damn my new computer with RoHS certified brazing solder sounds so
much better.prosit, max
Am 08.03.2008 um 09:49 schrieb sven:
i have speaker cables made of pure gold. i know what i'm talking about.
cheers, sven.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
sven wrote:
i have speaker cables made of pure gold. i know what i'm talking about.
About expensive speaker cables: http://consumerist.com/362926/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables
cu Thomas
"Prisons are needed only to provide the illusion that courts and police are effective. They're a kind of job insurance." (Leto II. in: Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune) http://thomas.dergrossebruder.org/
-
Andy Farnell -
beau -
Brandon Zeeb -
bsoisoi
-
Charles Henry -
Chuckk Hubbard -
Damian Stewart -
Frank Barknecht -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
IOhannes m zmölnig -
Kevin McCoy -
marius schebella -
Martin Peach -
Max Neupert -
Patrice Colet -
Robert Scott -
Roman Haefeli -
sven -
Thomas Mayer