Forums > MaxMSP

Max 5: What It Is (and Isn't)

September 28, 2007 | 8:35 pm

http://www.cycling74.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/9/28/105551/882

Now that David Z. has posted his "Max 5: What It Is (and Isn’t)"
article on Max 5, I can talk about it a little.

Over the last couple months, I’ve been seeing feature requests for
Max 5, and complaints with Max 4 here on the list, and I keep wanting
to reply with something like "You’re going to like Max 5." Rather
than reply in a bunch of different threads, I’m going to try and
gather some responses here.

Presentation mode – this can _really_ clean up UI patches. You can
place UI objects where they make sense from the code point of view,
then mark them as part of the presentation view. When you switch to
the presentation view, you can move them around and changes size,
etc. so that they make sense for the UI.

Zoomable windows. I don’t know about you, but my eyesight isn’t what
it used to be. The ability to zoom in is really great. There can be
different views onto the same patch, at different zoom levels. There
is the ability to snap objects to a (user-definable) grid now, too.

The Max window is greatly improved. Single lines, or arbitrary
sections, can be copied or cleared. From a message in the Max window,
there is a way to highlight the object in the patcher that wrote that
message into the Max window.

The new textual representation is human readable! The old #keyword
stuff was convenient as a way to share stuff on the list, but not for
much more. The new representation is more verbose, but much nicer,
IMO.

The new file browser lets you navigate your whole Max world from one location.

A _host_ of little things that make life easier. Many of the requests
that have come across the list in the last few months are in Max 5.
Max 5 represents a new foundation for future development.

-C

p.s.
I don’t want to inflate my role in any way. I’ve not been doing
development work on Max 5, I’ve only been beating on it for the last
couple of months. All kudos go to David Z. and the whole Max 5 team
at Cycling74 who have been toiling for a long time on this.


Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." – Brian Eno


September 28, 2007 | 8:52 pm

Hah, I saw this a few minutes earlier. It sounds amazing and great,
and I cannot wait to see/read more. Any chance for a screenshot or
two for those of us who are more visually um, oriented?

Indeed, this sounds like an amazing update. I cannot wait to get my
hands on it!

On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Chris Muir wrote:

>
> http://www.cycling74.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/9/28/105551/882
>
> Now that David Z. has posted his "Max 5: What It Is (and Isn’t)"
> article on Max 5, I can talk about it a little.
>
> Over the last couple months, I’ve been seeing feature requests for
> Max 5, and complaints with Max 4 here on the list, and I keep
> wanting to reply with something like "You’re going to like Max 5."
> Rather than reply in a bunch of different threads, I’m going to try
> and gather some responses here.
>
> Presentation mode – this can _really_ clean up UI patches. You can
> place UI objects where they make sense from the code point of view,
> then mark them as part of the presentation view. When you switch to
> the presentation view, you can move them around and changes size,
> etc. so that they make sense for the UI.
>
> Zoomable windows. I don’t know about you, but my eyesight isn’t
> what it used to be. The ability to zoom in is really great. There
> can be different views onto the same patch, at different zoom
> levels. There is the ability to snap objects to a (user-definable)
> grid now, too.
>
> The Max window is greatly improved. Single lines, or arbitrary
> sections, can be copied or cleared. From a message in the Max
> window, there is a way to highlight the object in the patcher that
> wrote that message into the Max window.
>
> The new textual representation is human readable! The old #keyword
> stuff was convenient as a way to share stuff on the list, but not
> for much more. The new representation is more verbose, but much
> nicer, IMO.
>
> The new file browser lets you navigate your whole Max world from
> one location.
>
> A _host_ of little things that make life easier. Many of the
> requests that have come across the list in the last few months are
> in Max 5. Max 5 represents a new foundation for future development.
>
> -C
>
> p.s.
> I don’t want to inflate my role in any way. I’ve not been doing
> development work on Max 5, I’ve only been beating on it for the
> last couple of months. All kudos go to David Z. and the whole Max 5
> team at Cycling74 who have been toiling for a long time on this.
>
> —
> Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status
> quo.
> cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
> http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." – Brian Eno

v a d e //

http://www.vade.info
abstrakt.vade.info


September 28, 2007 | 8:53 pm

Some of the stuff in David’s article, and the things you mention
below Chris, really, really are exciting! (Presentation mode in
particular will likely save me hours of time on my big projects!).

Oh, and… drum roll please:

"vst~ provides host sync to plug-ins"

!!!!!!!!

Dan

At 1:35 PM -0700 9/28/07, Chris Muir wrote:
>http://www.cycling74.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/9/28/105551/882


Dan Nigrin
Defective Records
202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X / Major
Malfunction
http://www.defectiverecords.com

http://www.jackosx.com


September 28, 2007 | 9:43 pm

From seeing several preliminary features, I concur. It looks great,
and I think most people will be happy.

On a slightly unrelated note, I just got forced into playing with
vvvv recently, and one really nice feature it has is called
"boygrouping". Basically, you network several machines, run a patch
on one of them, and then select the objects that you want mirrored on
the rest of the computers. It transmits that patch information to
the other machines…so you modify a single patch and it updates all
the computers. It’s kind of like a poly, for patches, across
multiple machines.

Thats not really a feature request, but it is pretty nice. That
being said, vvvv is less flexible in a lot of ways than Max/Jitter,
IMO. And what few interface advantages it has are completely
rectified by Max Force Five.

b

On Sep 28, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Chris Muir wrote:

>
> http://www.cycling74.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/9/28/105551/882
>
> Now that David Z. has posted his "Max 5: What It Is (and Isn’t)"
> article on Max 5, I can talk about it a little.
>
> Over the last couple months, I’ve been seeing feature requests for
> Max 5, and complaints with Max 4 here on the list, and I keep
> wanting to reply with something like "You’re going to like Max 5."
> Rather than reply in a bunch of different threads, I’m going to try
> and gather some responses here.
>
> Presentation mode – this can _really_ clean up UI patches. You can
> place UI objects where they make sense from the code point of view,
> then mark them as part of the presentation view. When you switch to
> the presentation view, you can move them around and changes size,
> etc. so that they make sense for the UI.
>
> Zoomable windows. I don’t know about you, but my eyesight isn’t
> what it used to be. The ability to zoom in is really great. There
> can be different views onto the same patch, at different zoom
> levels. There is the ability to snap objects to a (user-definable)
> grid now, too.
>
> The Max window is greatly improved. Single lines, or arbitrary
> sections, can be copied or cleared. From a message in the Max
> window, there is a way to highlight the object in the patcher that
> wrote that message into the Max window.
>
> The new textual representation is human readable! The old #keyword
> stuff was convenient as a way to share stuff on the list, but not
> for much more. The new representation is more verbose, but much
> nicer, IMO.
>
> The new file browser lets you navigate your whole Max world from
> one location.
>
> A _host_ of little things that make life easier. Many of the
> requests that have come across the list in the last few months are
> in Max 5. Max 5 represents a new foundation for future development.
>
> -C
>
> p.s.
> I don’t want to inflate my role in any way. I’ve not been doing
> development work on Max 5, I’ve only been beating on it for the
> last couple of months. All kudos go to David Z. and the whole Max 5
> team at Cycling74 who have been toiling for a long time on this.
>
> —
> Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status
> quo.
> cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
> http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." – Brian Eno

Barry Threw
Media Art and Technology

San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
Email: bthrew@gmail.com
IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
http:/www.barrythrew.com


September 28, 2007 | 11:01 pm

ok. that wins. I am now on referring to Max 5 as Max Force Five. Well
played.

On Sep 28, 2007, at 5:43 PM, barry threw wrote:

> Max Force Five

v a d e //

http://www.vade.info
abstrakt.vade.info


September 29, 2007 | 3:23 am

[quote]Perhaps you have memorized how everything in Max works. I have not ? I am constantly consulting the help files and documentation, and I feel that every moment I spend looking for the PDF or deciphering a help patch takes my concentration away from the problem at hand. We tried to look at every "moment" in the life of the Max programmer, and want to make the information that applied to that situation immediately available.
[/quote]

That’s my favorite paragraph from the article. Most of my work as a composer these days involves Max, but I (like many of us) wear multiple hats, and work regularly in multiple environments. It can be difficult for me to remember what’s what in Max/MSP/Jitter, especially when I’ve spent 1-2 weeks away from it, bringing myself up to speed on what’s different in the new Pro Tools/Logic/Waves/whatever, so that my recording engineer or producer hats still fit. The idea that when I’m working in Max, I can spend less time hunting through multiple PDF manuals and more time actually composing/programming/creating is really appealing to me.

Plus, I’m stoked about zoomable windows and multiple undos.

EH


September 29, 2007 | 3:28 am

Hi.

Nice work!!!

only two simple questions:

Linux!

This means "more power" Max?

poly~

Can we have several poly~’s and choose the cpu core for each one?

Thanks for your time and your fantastic work!


September 29, 2007 | 8:59 am

Dear all

Like many, I am refraining LOADS of questions on features, and
definitely look forward to read Mr Z’s next insights…

Congratulations

pa


September 29, 2007 | 12:22 pm

Quote: Rui Caldas wrote on Sat, 29 September 2007 05:28
—————————————————-

> poly~
>
> Can we have several poly~’s and choose the cpu core for each one?

Well, this wouldn’t make sense since the OS automatically distributes different threads over different cpus. Rui, you shouldn’t worry which thread is where. The only important thing is to have separate threads, the OS will take it from there.

Btw, poly~ splitting patches in separate threads is by far the best improvement for me. Great work!

Oh and I am particularly excited about the statement [quote] In order to work toward those goals, we’ve put a lot of effort into creating a more modern graphical user interface for interactive real-time graphical programmers [/qoute].

Note the term [i]real-time programming[/i]. I don’t know for sure whether David refers to ‘programming real-time operations’ or to ‘programming while the program runs’, but since the context is the graphical user interface, my guess is the second.

This is a new train of thought in software development and one of the main reasons I use max. I really love to see the CEO of the company of our beloved programming environment explicitly stating this as a core quality. GO Cyling!

Mattijs



jln
September 29, 2007 | 12:28 pm


September 29, 2007 | 3:23 pm

vst~ provides host sync to plug-ins?!

YEEEEEE HAAAAAA!!!

Anthony

—– Original Message —–
From: "Dan Nigrin"
To:
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [maxmsp] Max 5: What It Is (and Isn’t)

> Some of the stuff in David’s article, and the things you mention
> below Chris, really, really are exciting! (Presentation mode in
> particular will likely save me hours of time on my big projects!).
>
> Oh, and… drum roll please:
>
> "vst~ provides host sync to plug-ins"
>
> !!!!!!!!
>
> Dan
>
> At 1:35 PM -0700 9/28/07, Chris Muir wrote:
> >http://www.cycling74.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/9/28/105551/882
>
>
> —
> Dan Nigrin
> Defective Records
> 202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X / Major
> Malfunction
> http://www.defectiverecords.com
> http://www.jackosx.com
>


September 30, 2007 | 7:52 pm

DZ wrote:
Max, therefore, is more of a concept editor than a media editor.

I love that statement!

Roald Baudoux


October 1, 2007 | 10:27 am

What about multi-core machines support?


October 1, 2007 | 10:42 am

On 1 oct. 07, at 12:27, Stephane Letz wrote:

> What about multi-core machines support?

David Z. wrote:

"poly~ distributes its subpatchers onto multiple processors,
resulting in a substantial performance improvement in many cases"

ej


October 1, 2007 | 3:20 pm

Wow. This sounds great. I’m pretty new to Max (just started earlier this year), so having not "grown up" with the program, I was always a little baffled as to why the overall interface had not been updated. I feel the same way about Pro Tools.
Anyway, I’m a student, and my 9 month license expires in December. I would certainly like to and can probably afford to wait until 5 is released to buy the full license. Does anyone have any idea as to what Cycling’s free upgrade window for recent buyers has been in the past?


October 3, 2007 | 8:27 am

Improvements on the sound engine ? That’s for me a main issue and task for max5.


October 3, 2007 | 8:38 am

Quote: zonemark wrote on Wed, 03 October 2007 10:27
—————————————————-
> Improvements on the sound engine ? That’s for me a main issue and task for max5.
—————————————————-

Ehm.. what kind of improvements, can you be more specific?

Mattijs


October 3, 2007 | 9:42 am

> Improvements on the sound engine ? That’s for me a main issue and task for max5.

I agree, what about the improvements of the sound engine ?

For example I’d like to see a way to not stop audio when you change the patch.

And what about the scheduler timing issue ?

All the best


Alessandro Fogar

http://www.fogar.it


October 3, 2007 | 9:59 am

In comparison with supercollider, it’s clear (I think and friends of mine too). And it’s still 16-bit (isn’t it?), I need more overhead. I hear still too much distortion on patches even from experienced programmers (including from some well-known institutions).


October 3, 2007 | 10:36 am

Quote: zonemark wrote on Wed, 03 October 2007 11:59
—————————————————-
> In comparison with supercollider, it’s clear (I think and friends of mine too). And it’s still 16-bit (isn’t it?), I need more overhead. I hear still too much distortion on patches even from experienced programmers (including from some well-known institutions).
—————————————————-

With the risk of getting completely off topic; I use max’ sound engine in serious commercial projects. If the sound engine’s inherent quality would’ve been anything less than Logic Pro or Pro Tools I would definitly not have been able to make any money.

I don’t want to say you (or your friends) didn’t experience a problem but I do think that it is not the way Max is made that caused them. It’s more likely that there are a few in-depth things you need to know about the way max is programmed in order to get it working correctly.

I do agree that the documentation is not sufficient for people that are not dsp programmers.. but on the other hand the documentation would in fact have to be a software engineering / dsp programming course in order to be complete.

And that’s where we get back to the topic of Max 5. I am very curious how the new documentation system will address some of these fundamental issues (another notorious one of which is the understanding of the timing/threading system).

Mattijs


October 3, 2007 | 11:59 am

On 3 oct. 07, at 11:59, hubert machnik wrote:

> And it’s still 16-bit (isn’t it?)

it’s 32 bit floating point since the first version of MSP. Although,
most of the objects performs internal calculation in 64 bits floating
point (double).

ej


October 3, 2007 | 12:27 pm

> In comparison with supercollider, it’s clear

I like this kind of sentence… CSound sounds better than them all as
well ;-)

So since I use the 3 of them now, I can tell you that the sound
difference is inexistent in this case:

play a 24-bit sound file at native sampling rate
multiply by 0.5 then by 2.
record the output on a 24 bit file.

Then if you hear a difference from the original, you are very good!
So the problem is not in the audio engine.

Now if you start to compare some oscillators, filters or other signal
processing, then you can have preference. But what is great with Max
is that you can steal code from the 2 others: they are open source,
so just code them in a Max external!

pa


October 3, 2007 | 1:06 pm

Quote: Emmanuel Jourdan wrote on Wed, 03 October 2007 13:59
—————————————————-
> it’s 32 bit floating point since the first version of MSP. Although,
> most of the objects performs internal calculation in 64 bits floating
> point (double).
—————————————-
Is it (somebody told me recently that it is 16-bit), but if it is 32-bit float, then it’s a question of taste and maybe skills. I don’t use MSP to much because I hear it (MSP) somehow. For my next project I’ll try to use it again and improve my skills, cause of your comments. I use Max a lot to control all kind of media, soft- and hardware, in shows worldwide, there was a reason not using MSP too much in the past ….


October 3, 2007 | 6:14 pm

I only use Music III, it had the best sound EVAR.

b

On Oct 3, 2007, at 5:27 AM, Pierre Alexandre Tremblay wrote:

>> In comparison with supercollider, it’s clear
>
> I like this kind of sentence… CSound sounds better than them all
> as well ;-)
>
> So since I use the 3 of them now, I can tell you that the sound
> difference is inexistent in this case:
>
> play a 24-bit sound file at native sampling rate
> multiply by 0.5 then by 2.
> record the output on a 24 bit file.
>
> Then if you hear a difference from the original, you are very
> good! So the problem is not in the audio engine.
>
> Now if you start to compare some oscillators, filters or other
> signal processing, then you can have preference. But what is great
> with Max is that you can steal code from the 2 others: they are
> open source, so just code them in a Max external!
>
> pa

Barry Threw
Media Art and Technology

San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
Email: bthrew@gmail.com
IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
http:/www.barrythrew.com


October 6, 2007 | 3:45 am

> I only use Music III, it had the best sound EVAR.
>
> b

I’d like to believe that, honestly I would, but we audophiles know that
even that is all for naught if you don’t have this crucial piece of
gear in your hermetically-sealed, genetically-reinforced, hyperbaric
listening room with $6000 cables. (which are, of course, massively
superior to those $5000 cables which destroy your system (and possibly
your soul) from within)

You can get yours here: (Be sure to buy an extra for when you have live
performances!!!)

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm

But then again, I’m not the first audiophile to see this; there’s a lot
of reasonable historical precedent for my concern with precision.
After all, nobody wrote for the piano until the dynamic range was
enhanced. "Fortepiano"? Yeah, doesn’t sound like enough headroom to
me either. I’m still waiting until they fix the bit-depth per octave
problem and support aftertouch. (not to mention WTF about it only
having one program?!)


October 6, 2007 | 6:57 am

> After all, nobody wrote for the piano until the dynamic range was
> enhanced. "Fortepiano"? Yeah, doesn’t sound like enough headroom to
> me either.

The fortepiano was used by some marginal composers like Mozart, Beethoven Schubert, to mention a few, who probably wrote simply for whatever was around and didn’t properly wait for the piano to be ready.

How knows, maybe the aliasing of the patch chords has a positive contribution to the bit depth per octave, not to mention the sample rate per square inch.

have fun

_
johan


October 6, 2007 | 7:01 am

Hmmm, I’m afraid I shouldn’t have pressed send just now.

_
johan


October 6, 2007 | 9:24 am

Hi,

I too wonder, what is the new way that max objects refer to time.


October 8, 2007 | 5:58 pm

Does Max 5 have better sounding patch cords? The ones in pd have so
much clarity and depth of field.

b

On Oct 5, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Peter McCulloch wrote:

>> I only use Music III, it had the best sound EVAR.
>>
>> b
>
> I’d like to believe that, honestly I would, but we audophiles know
> that even that is all for naught if you don’t have this crucial
> piece of gear in your hermetically-sealed, genetically-reinforced,
> hyperbaric listening room with $6000 cables. (which are, of
> course, massively superior to those $5000 cables which destroy your
> system (and possibly your soul) from within)
>
> You can get yours here: (Be sure to buy an extra for when you have
> live performances!!!)
> http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm
>
> But then again, I’m not the first audiophile to see this; there’s a
> lot of reasonable historical precedent for my concern with
> precision. After all, nobody wrote for the piano until the dynamic
> range was enhanced. "Fortepiano"? Yeah, doesn’t sound like enough
> headroom to me either. I’m still waiting until they fix the bit-
> depth per octave problem and support aftertouch. (not to mention
> WTF about it only having one program?!)
>
>
>
>
>
>

Barry Threw
Media Art and Technology

San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
Email: bthrew@gmail.com
IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
http:/www.barrythrew.com


October 8, 2007 | 6:36 pm

2007/10/8, barry threw :
>
> Does Max 5 have better sounding patch cords? The ones in pd have so
> much clarity and depth of field.
>
>

I find Max’s cords very danceable.

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2007/10/01/james-randi-calls-ou.html


October 8, 2007 | 7:12 pm

> I find Max’s cords very danceable.
>
> http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2007/10/01/james-randi-calls-ou.html

As per the danceable comment on the linked page:

I’m not sure which is funnier: the comment itself, or the mental image
of the audiophile in question dancing.

Peter McCulloch


October 8, 2007 | 7:28 pm

Quote: 196617 wrote on Mon, 08 October 2007 11:36
—————————————————-
>
> I find Max’s cords very danceable.
>
> http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2007/10/01/james-randi-calls-ou.html
>

Bah! Why settle for Pear Cable when you can get the Aurant’s superior Opus MM cable for a mere $30,750

http://www.aurant.com/signaturefeature.php

Now *thats* danceable.


October 8, 2007 | 8:07 pm

Quote: peter.mcculloch@gmail.com wrote on Mon, 08 October 2007 12:12
—————————————————-
>
> I’m not sure which is funnier: the comment itself, or the mental image
> of the audiophile in question dancing.
>

The audiophile dancing. Try picturing him busting out some Tecktonic moves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bytf3gZMFkY

(sorry for pushing this thread even more OT, I’ll stop now :P)


October 8, 2007 | 8:12 pm

On 8 Oct 2007, at 18:58, barry threw wrote:

> Does Max 5 have better sounding patch cords? The ones in pd have
> so much clarity and depth of field.

I’m glad to see that the Max 5 patch cords no longer have sharp
corners; I’ve always noticed that segmented patch cords tend to lose
the high frequencies.

– N.

Nick Rothwell / Cassiel.com Limited
http://www.cassiel.com
http://www.myspace.com/cassieldotcom
http://www.last.fm/music/cassiel
http://www.loadbang.net


October 8, 2007 | 8:22 pm

Holy shit, 250 grand for a FIVE THOUSAND? lumens projector?

That wont even do 1080p native!? HAHAHAHA

5000? You can get a 20,000 lumens project with proper film 2k and 4k
resolutions for much much less. HAHA. Christ.

/me cries.

On Oct 8, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Adam Murray wrote:

>
> Quote: 196617 wrote on Mon, 08 October 2007 11:36
> —————————————————-
>>
>> I find Max’s cords very danceable.
>>
>> http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2007/10/01/james-randi-calls-ou.html
>>
>
> Bah! Why settle for Pear Cable when you can get the Aurant’s
> superior Opus MM cable for a mere $30,750
>
> http://www.aurant.com/signaturefeature.php
>
> Now *thats* danceable.
>
>
>
>

v a d e //

http://www.vade.info
abstrakt.vade.info


October 8, 2007 | 9:55 pm

It might be cool to have something akin to logic nodes with max and jitter, so one could allot processing through a network.


October 8, 2007 | 10:35 pm

very good idea, actually a dream…

On Oct 9, 2007, at 12:55 AM, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:

>
> It might be cool to have something akin to logic nodes with max and
> jitter, so one could allot processing through a network.
>
>
> –
> -=ili!ili=- http://www.Axiom-Crux.net -=ili!ili=-


October 9, 2007 | 2:38 am

>
> I’m glad to see that the Max 5 patch cords no longer have sharp
> corners; I’ve always noticed that segmented patch cords tend to lose
> the high frequencies.
>

Yeah, and the ground loops when you run them parallel to control-rate
cables are merciless.

Peter McCulloch


October 9, 2007 | 4:33 am

For my next project I’m emulating this as a Max Object:

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm

b

On Oct 8, 2007, at 7:38 PM, Peter McCulloch wrote:

>>
>> I’m glad to see that the Max 5 patch cords no longer have sharp
>> corners; I’ve always noticed that segmented patch cords tend to
>> lose the high frequencies.
>>
>
> Yeah, and the ground loops when you run them parallel to control-
> rate cables are merciless.
>
> Peter McCulloch
>

Barry Threw
Media Art and Technology

San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
Email: bthrew@gmail.com
IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
http:/www.barrythrew.com


October 9, 2007 | 7:19 am

I love it all, presentation mode in particular.

But please please please make the graphics look a bit more like the old max! The new "no right angles thing" greatly complicates the way a patch looks to mine eyes. Sorry for complaining, but visually the new max just looks a little fat and cluttered, slim patch cords and nothing says object like a box, rather than an oval. that would be my one criticism, can’t wait for all the new features though.


October 9, 2007 | 7:38 am

Better make it a Jitter object!

On Oct 9, 2007, at 6:33 AM, barry threw wrote:

> For my next project I’m emulating this as a Max Object:
>
> http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm
>
>
> b
>
> On Oct 8, 2007, at 7:38 PM, Peter McCulloch wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I’m glad to see that the Max 5 patch cords no longer have sharp
>>> corners; I’ve always noticed that segmented patch cords tend to
>>> lose the high frequencies.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, and the ground loops when you run them parallel to control-
>> rate cables are merciless.
>>
>> Peter McCulloch
>>
>
> Barry Threw
> Media Art and Technology
>
>
> San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
> Email: bthrew@gmail.com
> IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
> http:/www.barrythrew.com
>
>
>


October 9, 2007 | 8:06 am

> and nothing says object like a box, rather than an oval.

execpt when the object is a lowpass filter.

see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect


October 9, 2007 | 5:16 pm

Good link.
I guess it’s Bouba time, so let’s go for it!

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect


October 10, 2007 | 7:38 am


October 10, 2007 | 3:10 pm


October 10, 2007 | 4:13 pm

Hi,

> > For example I’d like to see a way to not stop audio when you change the patch.
>
> probably impossible – or if yu want a fadeout fadein effect
> we could program that ourself on the max layer.

How ? I think the only workaround is working with Pluggo (i.e. part of
your patch trasformed in Pluggos)…

I seem to remember this was possible with the early versions of Msp.

> > And what about the scheduler timing issue ?
>
> not exactly an audio problem that. :)

Yes I know ;-)

All the best


Alessandro Fogar

http://www.fogar.it


October 10, 2007 | 9:51 pm

barry threw schrieb:
> I only use Music III, it had the best sound EVAR.

You probably never heared Music I, It’s a known fact, that every update
of technology will ruin the sound a bit more…
This was true for going from wax cylinders to shellac to vinyl to tape
to digital, as for going from Music I – V to Csound to Max to
Supercollider to Chuck…
And of course the sound of System 7 was so much better than Vista…
Just listen to these old wax cylinders and you know what I am talking
about, its clear…

Stefan


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


October 11, 2007 | 3:29 pm

>But please please please make the graphics look a bit more like >the old max! The new "no right angles thing" greatly complicates >the way a patch looks to mine eyes.

I completely agree.

Besides the text the whole interface is just white space & straight lines now.
I guess max’ geometric gridlike GUI really makes it more easy to see through the structure of a patch.

I really would dislike having rounded edges or other cosmetic stuff while patching, since it serves completely no purpose.

For the other, performance oriented GUI stuff; great!


October 12, 2007 | 2:55 am

First, Max 5 looks excellent. Thanks c74 for the continued innovation, my friends and I are looking forward to the upgrade.

Second, I started to write this post in order to throw some more energy towards the request for right angle patch cords and square objects boxes, and while I think it’s a good idea to have a preference for [Minimal UI], I should point out that being able to zoom in/out of the patch changes the game considerably (or possibly even makes Max more "game like").

Yes, I’ll be annoyed by the new "friendly look" if that’s the only option we get, but it will bring more users to c74 which benefits everyone.

I do cringe at the waste of space the friendly UI creates. For example, Kyma X has a very attractive looking UI but it’s absolutely a nightmare to navigate or organize for compact programming structures.

IMO, some users will hate zoom, others will love it, but relying on zoom to compensate for a less compact UI seems like the least efficient workflow. (using more keystrokes while forcing the user to continually rescan a changing visual space all because the layout is no longer compact)

Although it does comply with Jevon’s Law. Max 6, in 3D?

PS. On the feature side of things, it would be really cool to have a time preference that is inherited by sub patchers but also can be overridden at each patcher level. I’m thinking something like quicktime editing units except that the unit could be coupled to a number of fixed/absolute clock sources (cpu clock/ audio interrupt, scheduler, quicktime, bangs from some named send, etc.). E.g., clock unit hertz synced to quicktime fps, driving lines that intern drive matrix transforms. Having a floating absolute/relative/inheritable clock system like this would open many doors to quick dynamic relationships between patchers and could also allow precision to be defined where needed rather than globally. It could of course be taken further and Jevon would smile, but i’ll leave him in a semi perplexed state and sign off.

-Anthony


October 12, 2007 | 3:11 am

I think the setclock object and clock message should be able to do
this for objects that use the scheduler for timing, no?

On Oct 11, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Anthony Bisset wrote:

> PS. On the feature side of things, it would be really cool to have
> a time preference that is inherited by sub patchers but also can be
> overridden at each patcher level. I’m thinking something like
> quicktime editing units except that the unit could be coupled to a
> number of fixed/absolute clock sources (cpu clock/ audio interrupt,
> scheduler, quicktime, bangs from some named send, etc.). E.g.,
> clock unit hertz synced to quicktime fps, driving lines that intern
> drive matrix transforms. Having a floating absolute/relative/
> inheritable clock system like this would open many doors to quick
> dynamic relationships between patchers and could also allow
> precision to be defined where needed rather than globally. It could
> of course be taken further and Jevon would smile, but i’ll leave
> him in a semi perplexed state and sign off.

v a d e //

http://www.vade.info
abstrakt.vade.info


October 12, 2007 | 3:24 am


October 12, 2007 | 9:08 am

I hadn’t looked at setclock in years. Thanks Vade, it covers some of what I suggested. An underlying advantage to expanding and clarifying the timing system of Max would be a great reduction in redundant forum posts. Also, the relationship between Metro and quicktime units is very tenuous and this aspect of max seems like something c74 might want to re-evaluate.

-Anthony


October 12, 2007 | 9:20 am

You might be interested in the @editmode attribute of jit.qt.movie.
It will cause jit.qt.movie to internally convert between a number of
useful time formats.

jb

Am 12.10.2007 um 11:08 schrieb Anthony Bisset:

>
> I hadn’t looked at setclock in years. Thanks Vade, it covers some
> of what I suggested. An underlying advantage to expanding and
> clarifying the timing system of Max would be a great reduction in
> redundant forum posts. Also, the relationship between Metro and
> quicktime units is very tenuous and this aspect of max seems like
> something c74 might want to re-evaluate.
>
> -Anthony


October 25, 2007 | 12:44 am

I bought Max two weeks before the Oct. 1 free-upgrade window. How
much will I have to pay to upgrade to v. 5? Multiple undo, Ableton
colors, a presentation screen, fewer crashes and a better
schedular… :-| cheers Todd


October 25, 2007 | 1:28 am

I bought Max two weeks before the Oct. 1 free-upgrade window. How
much will I have to pay to upgrade to v. 5? What is the top secret
price of, as far as I can tell, multiple undo, new colors, a
presentation screen, fewer crashes and a (maybe) better schedular.
cheers Todd


Viewing 55 posts - 1 through 55 (of 55 total)