>
> I can see the concept of minimising the middle-man in software but on the
> level of what you will actually write not much need to be different. CK an
> SC (PD is obviously a bit different being graphical) are perfectly fine with
> with sending the outcome of a equation straight to the output. You lose the
> nice ready-made Ugens and their optimisation but you can. I imagine that at
> that point shell-scripting and ChucK would start to look a lot alike as math
> is math.
>
Hm, makes sense. I'm more interested at this point in understanding the
mathematics of sound, rather than creating any musical variety of it...
Erm..... you may want to look at a manual for the Unix shell (type "man man"
> at the terminal to get you the manual entry for the manual command). It has
> quite a large dictionary, I fear.
>
Ugh, tell me about it. I had Kernighan/Pike open next to me when I wrote
that.
Have a look at Forth. Forth (in some versions) can boot straight into Forth,
> skipping the OS altogether, at that point the *only* thing you can do is
> develop a language to converse in... with no middle man. I'd take a ancient
> computer for this, 8086 or so because there are good reasons for middle-men
> on modern ones.
>
I guess the issue I am addressing is the "combinatorial efficiency" of any
alphabet, at the point where it is being encoded with meaning and becoming a
language. That aside,...at some point in the nearing present, a lot of live
music is going to be made with the help of small microcontrollers instead of
laptops, in fact, it already is.
> I dunno.... me, I just want world-peace, 6 or so more hours to the day, a
> bit of love every once in a while.... and another cup of coffee. Some of
> that might be a bit much to ask so I started with the most attainsable one.
>
Sigh. I know its coffee.
> If you don't want to master Linux I wouldn't use it for synthesis directly.
> Middle-men don't bug me as long as they are transparent; I don't feel the
> middle-men that go from a value at ChucK's abstraction of the DAC, to this
> file, to a driver, to some little buffer on the card to, a current on the
> actual DAC to, a offset in the speaker's position, to vibrarting air to me
> hearing the sounds that objectionable.
>
I am sure what I'm asking for is too much, it isn't a joke. I was able to
learn whatever little
computing (language(s)) I do because I am fairly well educated in English,
which has played middleman to this part of the world for 300 years. I just
want to be able to encounter a medium as universal as the drum (bang that
thing!) within computer music.
> As I see things modern computers are too large and complex to have minute
> controll over all the details, I'm fine with pretending the VM is the
> computer and ignoring the middle-men altogether aside from occasionally
> configuring a driver or buying a new soundcard.
>
That's precisely my fear. I don't trust things I don't fully comprehend.
Because that makes me defendant on someone who I don't know. Speaking of
drivers, I have no sound in my XP because Conexant don't love me, and no
wifi in my Ubuntu because Broadcomm wants my blood. By the time I figure out
how to write my own, I am dead certain that music would have left my life
for good.
> But hey; it's your concept and it's a commendable concept so why not? See
> if and where your get stuck, at the very least you'll learn stuff.
>
No, it's not even a concept yet. It's alright, if I could explain it
completely, I would have made it already :)
--
------- -.-
1/f ))) --.
------- ...
http://www.algomantra.com
Received on Sat May 03 2008 - 11:31:38 BST