Author |
Message |
T. Azimuth Schwitters
Joined: Dec 19, 2009 Posts: 8 Location: Madison, WI
|
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:03 pm Post subject:
Hello! |
 |
|
Just checking to see if anyone on the planet still uses Csound. There used to be such a robust community. |
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
yerpa58
Joined: Mar 08, 2008 Posts: 57 Location: Wisconsin
Audio files: 4
|
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:15 am Post subject:
|
 |
|
I have an OLPC (or LOLPC, as I call it) that has a nice program called Synth Lab that I believe is based on csound. I would like to find the Synth Lab source so I could see how it connects to csound, but no luck so far. I would be interested in finding a good overview of the current csound source code. I have also subscribed to the MIT Press Computer Music Journal in the past, there have been a few articles on csound.
csound is very powerful, and seems to run pretty well on the 400 MHz chip in the LOLPC. |
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
T. Azimuth Schwitters
Joined: Dec 19, 2009 Posts: 8 Location: Madison, WI
|
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:44 am Post subject:
|
 |
|
Even on the forums at Csounds.com there is little to no activity. I'm concerned that I'm spending a great deal of time learning a doomed technology. |
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
yerpa58
Joined: Mar 08, 2008 Posts: 57 Location: Wisconsin
Audio files: 4
|
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:15 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
You probably want to check out the ChucK programming language. Many aspects seem similar to csound. |
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
T. Azimuth Schwitters
Joined: Dec 19, 2009 Posts: 8 Location: Madison, WI
|
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:36 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
Already learning it.
I don't see them as highly similar. Csound seems more appropriate for composition, ChucK for live performance.
Some things about ChucK bother me, like the fact that it's crash-prone, and (at first glance) there isn't a note off command. There also seems to be a bit less configurability.
I do like it for various other reasons, though. |
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
Antimon
Joined: Jan 18, 2005 Posts: 4145 Location: Sweden
Audio files: 371
G2 patch files: 100
|
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:07 am Post subject:
|
 |
|
Yeah, ChucK is young. I sense a problem with fragmentation between these programming languages - there isn't a large enough user base to support decent communities for all of them. As they go in and out of fashion, knowledge drains from the old and fills up in the new.
I can't help wondering where you're looking for a note off command in ChucK, but that seems like a discussion for the ChucK forum.
/Stefan _________________ Antimon's Window
@soundcloud @Flattr home - you can't explain music |
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
dewdrop_world

Joined: Aug 28, 2006 Posts: 858 Location: Guangzhou, China
Audio files: 4
|
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 8:53 am Post subject:
|
 |
|
T. Azimuth Schwitters wrote: | Already learning it.
I don't see them as highly similar. Csound seems more appropriate for composition, ChucK for live performance. |
Look at SuperCollider then. Quite nearly crash-proof, active user and developer community, and it has a non-realtime mode if you want to do batch-style rendering. There's also a "Ctk" (composition tool kit) extension, a useful bridge between real-time and NRT styles of code.
CSound is losing traction, probably more because of Max/MSP's near-monopoly in academic computer music curricula than developments in music/audio programming languages. Its roots are in the batch-style processing that was the only way for people to interact with computers back when music-n was first written. I understand there are csound GUIs and it's become more interactive, but it's hard for me to see how it could catch up with modern interface designs without significantly extending the language to include built-in data structures, flow of control and abstraction mechanisms, and extensible interface toolkits.
By the time they've done all that, I'm not sure it would be much different from what supercollider already is. (And, supercollider has a big head start in terms of abstraction and data structuring/manipulation.) It might be more productive to port csound opcodes over to supercollider ugens, then, where supercollider doesn't already have them.
James _________________ ddw online: http://www.dewdrop-world.net
sc3 online: http://supercollider.sourceforge.net |
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
ninly

Joined: Feb 18, 2010 Posts: 1 Location: Huntsville, AL
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:30 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
I've been learning and using csound for my project, although I'm nowhere near adept enough as a programmer (or even as a composer) to really participate in the development community.
I very much appreciate csound as a technology and medium, though. _________________ /nly
http://semiautomaticgroundenvironment.com/
http://ninly.net/ |
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
herrsteiner
Joined: Mar 10, 2008 Posts: 8 Location: Hamburg
|
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:54 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
I still love to use Csound and it is very active, with recent updates. And due to its open source status it cant die anyway, unlike closed source (SoundDiver anyone?). I see regularly some keyfigures on conferences. The Csound community happens in the mailing list. |
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
|