Live electronics

Dec 26, 2006 at 1:35pm

Live electronics

I’m preparing an ensemble of patches for live performance in a
largely improvised procedure.

I’m wondering what is the best way to organize this in order to
optimize both cpu load and flexibility:

1_One patch including all the procedures in subpatches
2_Several patches sending~ audio in one centralized dac~
3_Several totally independant patches, with one dac~ in each one.

The output will be on four to six channels.

Any advice from live performers is very welcome.

———————————-
Jean-Michel DARREMONT

“Les choses n’ont pas de signification : elles ont une existence.
[Fernando Pessoa]

#29374
Dec 26, 2006 at 2:14pm

#91722
Dec 26, 2006 at 4:18pm

#91723
Dec 26, 2006 at 6:33pm

#91724
Dec 26, 2006 at 7:34pm

#91725
Dec 26, 2006 at 7:51pm

#91726
Dec 26, 2006 at 9:07pm

#91727
Dec 27, 2006 at 3:16am

#91728
Dec 27, 2006 at 9:48am

hi

I use patches for both composition and impro, even if i shopuld point
it is mainly for compositions – the “impro” patches are most often
results of “composition” ones, and my impros are usually “prepared” –
not so much that i ever rehearse them (!!) but I build a patch
according to what I want to play (It is very close as to choose on
what instrument I want/will improvise)

I will say the exact opposite of what Roald said there – in my
composisions there is NO short moment of silence that would be
harmless: in patches using different ways of muting sub patches (to
avoid CPU overload) I usually makes those mutable sub-patches “small”
enough so that at least 2 (usually more) of them can be played at the
same time – this way I can mute some – sound still playing – and
unmute some other.

as for the original question (one or many patches/sub patches) in
both cases (compo/impro) I belive ONE patch is way better (everything
is in front of you) – this one can have sub patchers (and often has
to, of course) but i try to leave at least the main controls for each
on the main patch, at least its master volume or the most important
control/feature. This is the opposite of most of the patches I have
seen at Ircam – where each process has its own sub patch – but I
found it much easier to actually play.

best

kasper

>
>
>I would say the solution could be different if you’re improvising or
>playing a composition. In the latter case, you would probably find a
>moment where a short silence would be harmless. But when improvising
>I guess you should have some CPU margin so to allow you to choose
>another preset even when not at a silent moment.
>


Kasper T. Toeplitz
noise, composition, bass, computer

http://www.sleazeArt.com

http://www.myspace.com/sleazeart

#91729
Dec 28, 2006 at 11:57am

#91730
Dec 28, 2006 at 1:02pm

>If you have dual CPUs you have to have multiple patches and run one in Max runtime to get full efficiency out of it.

is it not possible to install 2 instances of Max MSP and run them both?

#91731
Dec 28, 2006 at 6:05pm

Yes, on Mac OS you can do this. Windows I don’t think it works, and you
have to use runtime for one of the patches.

It’s not like you are going to want to do much editing in performance
anyway. Or at least _I_ don’t really live code so much with Max…

b

bin ray wrote:
>> If you have dual CPUs you have to have multiple patches and run one in Max runtime to get full efficiency out of it.
>
> is it not possible to install 2 instances of Max MSP and run them both?
> –
> http://www.myspace.com/binray
>


barry threw :: sound | (if you would see the stars clearly,
http://www.barrythrew.com | look hard at the surrounding darkness)
bthrew(at)gmail(dot)com | -Ooka Makoto
857-544-3967 |

#91732

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.