petterdass

feature-request-audio-self-contained-patches

What does this mean? Have you seen 'startwindow' or perhaps you mean restricting DSP to a patch therefore have you seen mute~ or poly~?

I mean with this that if I use 100mb of samples, then the patch is 100mb large, containing all the samples, and if I then open the patch on another computer, or rename/organize my audio folders, my patch will still contain everything.

> I mean with this that if I use 100mb of samples, then the patch is

> 100mb large, containing all the samples, and if I then open the patch

> on another computer, or rename/organize my audio folders, my patch

Why not just putting it into a specifically named folder? The path 

message to thispatcher gives all the information you need. Imagine you 

send the patch to someone and later you need to provide a bugfix. 

Sending 100 MB as an attachment is not very practical...

petterdass schrieb:
> I mean with this that if I use 100mb of samples, then the patch is
> 100mb large, containing all the samples, and if I then open the patch
> on another computer, or rename/organize my audio folders, my patch
> will still contain everything.
>
> Both Live and Reason have this feature 

Why not just putting it into a specifically named folder? The path 
message to thispatcher gives all the information you need. Imagine you 
send the patch to someone and later you need to provide a bugfix. 
Sending 100 MB as an attachment is not very practical...

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com


Nonono -- I would like this feature. I was a layouter as profession and 

I was really really glad that my software (Pagemaker) did not forget any 

picts or so that were in my layouts when I saved my work for the print 

shop. ;-) Sending 100 MB as an attachment is not very practical..., yes, 

but there are Notebooks, USB-Stcks, CD-ROMs etc. etc.

All in all: It would be nice to have a "Save all separately"-funktion.

>> I mean with this that if I use 100mb of samples, then the patch is 

>> 100mb large, containing all the samples ... 

> Why not just putting it into a specifically named folder? The path 

> message to thispatcher gives all the information you need. Imagine you 

> send the patch to someone and later you need to provide a bugfix. 

> Sending 100 MB as an attachment is not very practical...

Nonono -- I would like this feature. I was a layouter as profession and 
I was really really glad that my software (Pagemaker) did not forget any 
picts or so that were in my layouts when I saved my work for the print 
shop. ;-) Sending 100 MB as an attachment is not very practical..., yes, 
but there are Notebooks, USB-Stcks, CD-ROMs etc. etc.
All in all: It would be nice to have a "Save all separately"-funktion.

Stefan Tiedje wrote:
> petterdass schrieb:
>> I mean with this that if I use 100mb of samples, then the patch is 
>> 100mb large, containing all the samples ... 
> Why not just putting it into a specifically named folder? The path 
> message to thispatcher gives all the information you need. Imagine you 
> send the patch to someone and later you need to provide a bugfix. 
> Sending 100 MB as an attachment is not very practical...
>
> Stefan


The patch format could be used to embed audio data in the manner that the fpic object does with image data (look at a patch with an embedded fpic and you'll see what happens, it's similar to the compressed clipboard format). We'd just have to enable it as an option for certain objects I suppose. I'll look into it.

I love Max 5 in the current state, but with this feature added I will love to death, and it will completely change my Max workflow 

If this is easy to implement, could I count on this to show up in an uppdate soon?

Off topic : I have currently registered Max online to one of my laptops, but have another laptop and a desktop computer all running Windows, Could I run Max on any of these also?

I love Max 5 in the current state, but with this feature added I will love to death, and it will completely change my Max workflow 
   If this is easy to implement, could I count on this to show up in an uppdate soon?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you create a standalone app out of a patch, you can include sound files and it will all get wrapped up in the application "package".

Quote: petterdass wrote on Sat, 18 October 2008 09:56

----------------------------------------------------

> Off topic : I have currently registered Max online to one of my laptops, but have another laptop and a desktop computer all running Windows, Could I run Max on any of these also?

In the past this was allowed but I don't know if the policy has changed. Best to send an email.

Quote: swieser1 wrote on Wed, 22 October 2008 22:49

You aren't wrong but as the standalone is built with a .mxf (i.e. a Max collective) it is uneditable. I believe the original poster would like to be able to edit his patches after creating the collective.

Quote: petterdass wrote on Sat, 18 October 2008 09:56
----------------------------------------------------

Quote: swieser1 wrote on Wed, 22 October 2008 22:49
----------------------------------------------------
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you create a standalone app out of a patch, you can include sound files and it will all get wrapped up in the application "package".
----------------------------------------------------

You aren't wrong but as the standalone is built with a .mxf (i.e. a Max collective) it is uneditable. I believe the original poster would like to be able to edit his patches after creating the collective.


Quote: You aren't wrong but as the standalone is built with a .mxf (i.e. a Max collective) it is uneditable. I believe the original poster would like to be able to edit his patches after creating the collective.

Yeah, I want to be able to do that indeed !

One more thing : If this feature is going to be implemented (which I got the feeling from zicarellis reply that it is), I would prefer if the actual audio also could be stored directly in groove~,play~ ansd the other audio players, so that a subpatch like a sampler would have all the relevant audio "inside".

The patches would off course be big, but that would be optional, and 

data storage ability is increasing, Terabyte external drives are cheap, and laptops often is delivered with more than 200 gigabyte hard drive

The patches would off course be big, but that would be optional, and 
data storage ability is increasing, Terabyte external drives are cheap, and laptops often is delivered with more than 200 gigabyte hard drive


"I believe the original poster would like to be able to edit his patches

this is painful but possible, in fact, mxf format contains all embedded

that's why protecting max apps&collectives is at this moment impossible, and

so i don't think embedding a sound into the mxf will protect it from reverse

"I believe the original poster would like to be able to edit his patches
after creating the collective."

this is painful but possible, in fact, mxf format contains all embedded
patches and abstractions as text format.

that's why protecting max apps&collectives is at this moment impossible, and
that's why we need a binary file format.

so i don't think embedding a sound into the mxf will protect it from reverse
engineering.

also i understand you don't want to protect it, just embed it. :-)

but protecting apps&collectives is what make default to max 5 for the moment

> "I believe the original poster would like to be able to edit his patches

> this is painful but possible, in fact, mxf format contains all embedded

> patches and abstractions as text format.

> that's why protecting max apps&collectives is at this moment impossible,

> and that's why we need a binary file format.

> so i don't think embedding a sound into the mxf will protect it from

but protecting apps&collectives is what make default to max 5 for the moment
and i would to point it out.

> "I believe the original poster would like to be able to edit his patches
> after creating the collective."
>
> this is painful but possible, in fact, mxf format contains all embedded
> patches and abstractions as text format.
>
> that's why protecting max apps&collectives is at this moment impossible,
> and that's why we need a binary file format.
>
> so i don't think embedding a sound into the mxf will protect it from
> reverse engineering.
>
> g
>
> 2008/10/30 petterdass 
>
>
>> I mean buffer~ off course :)
>>
>
>

"also i understand you don't want to protect it, just embed it"

I am not quite sure what you mean by this.

My audio library is always evolving and changing, and that is an important part of my workflow.

When im gaining new knowledge on signal processing, I realize that threes of folders previously was named unwise/incorrect, and I am constantly moving files/folders around to make my evergrowing wav-banks as easily accesible, and make as much sense as possible.

When my projects contain all the files that is necessary, I can organize on my soundbanks freely.

I used to always have missing samples, and when working on old projects, something is 100% always missing - Is that just me?

My audio library is always evolving and changing, and that is an important part of my workflow.
When im gaining new knowledge on signal processing, I realize that threes of folders previously was named unwise/incorrect, and I am constantly moving files/folders around to make my evergrowing wav-banks as easily accesible, and make as much sense as possible.
When my projects contain all the files that is necessary, I can organize on my soundbanks freely.

Just to clarify (I'm a little confused about what you are after):

Are you saying that you want to always have EVERY sample in your entire library to move with the patch? Or do you just want a specific set of samples for a specific project to move with the patch?

Quote: Roth wrote on Mon, 10 November 2008 20:19

> Just to clarify (I'm a little confused about what you are after):

> Are you saying that you want to always have EVERY sample in your entire library to move with the patch? Or do you just want a specific set of samples for a specific project to move with the patch?

I guess you mean every sample in the entire library that is actually 

used in the project, yes that is what Im thinking.

One problematic scenario I can think of is if anyone write a patch to randomly choose audio from the hard drive.

When saving projects in Live, it opens a dialog where it asks whether to contain samples from library, other projects and sample cds.

Quote: Roth wrote on Mon, 10 November 2008 20:19
----------------------------------------------------
> Just to clarify (I'm a little confused about what you are after):
>
> Are you saying that you want to always have EVERY sample in your entire library to move with the patch? Or do you just want a specific set of samples for a specific project to move with the patch?
----------------------------------------------------

I guess you mean every sample in the entire library that is actually 
used in the project, yes that is what Im thinking.
One problematic scenario I can think of is if anyone write a patch to randomly choose audio from the hard drive.

The coolest solution for this, I think, if is Max keep track of which samples from a folder that is actually beeing used/played by the patch, so if I make a sequenced sampler patch containing several velocity layers of - say a tb-303, only those samples are being loaded with the patch.

I guess this particular request makes no sense at all for anyone including me, and thus shows that Im just trying to keep this thread going..:)

Feature request : audio self contained patches